|
I was talking to my friend, and he said something(not important) and so I called it "Shady". He added "as hell" at the end of it. The conversation proceeded as follows
Me:I hear hell has no shade because of all the fire.
Him: fire provides shade with the fact that fire gives off light
Me: Given the fact that fire in hell is omnipresent everywhere, I don't believe there is any shade.
Him: you could just say, if fire is omnipresent, saying "if fire is omnipresent everywhere" is like saying fire is everywhere everywhere
The debate comes down to this:
Is it a correct usage of the word omnipresent to state that something is always there?
My logic:
Present
Adjective: In a particular place.
Omni
Prefix: All
Omnipresent: All in a particular place
I think it is allowed to be stretched to always in a particular place, due to it all being there.
His Logic:
Omnipresent in merriam webster:
present in all places at all times.
Omnipresent everywhere else:
present in all places at all times.
The Debate
According to the strict definition, my friend is correct. From a break down of the word, I believe I am correct as well. I could vouch for my definition as a provincial usage, but I prefer not to.
What do you think, TL?
Poll: Which definition is correct?Present in all places at all times (20) 91% Always Present (2) 9% Both! (0) 0% 22 total votes Your vote: Which definition is correct? (Vote): Always Present
(Vote): Present in all places at all times
(Vote): Both!
 
|
|
|
There is a reason why dictionaries have entries for full words, not just affixes and roots. You don't look up the parts of a word and combine the meanings as you see fit if there is a definition for the full word already.
|
On June 28 2011 06:54 PJA wrote:
You are wrong.
From a different perspective, omnicient means all knowing, but as a result it means always knowing.
If there was a round ball powering our world, and our world was always powered, could we not consider the round ball as omnipresent? It is present, and always, which falls under omnipresent.
|
On June 28 2011 07:06 mucker wrote:
There is a reason why dictionaries have entries for full words, not just affixes and roots. You don't look up the parts of a word and combine the meanings as you see fit if there is a definition for the full word already.
Thats how my brain works. I did not purposely combine the words for a new definition, but rather the fact that god is considered omnipresent threw me off. I figure since he is not everywhere but he's always there that means he always exists and is the justification of omnipresent.
|
If he is not everywhere, how can he see everything?
|
On June 28 2011 07:12 Navane wrote:
If he is not everywhere, how can he see everything?
You are right, i misinterpreted that, but it probably comes from childhood visions of me thinking god has a crystal ball and me being agnostic to the point of atheism.
Also found this, it appears this is a common provincial definition
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071028144709AAzTXjc
|
Boring answer:
I agree with your friend, saying [something] is omnipresent everywhere is redundant.
Bored answer:
Man I agree so much!
Last wednesday me and my mate Jim were discussing anabolic steroids and how they infact make you stronger aside from the side effects. I noted that if Jim were to take anabolic steroids and work out regularily he'd be as strong as a blacksmith, to which he replied that since he is black he'd be a big black blacksmith!
I naturally disagreed since blacksmith is clearly made up of the two words black and smith, it is a given that a blacksmith is infact black. We debated this over the next few days, it even escalated into me signing up his email address on a multitude of online shady porn sites. Entirely justifed of course. Jim actually got pissed off! Can you imagine?
|
^
"The term "blacksmith" comes from the activity of "smiting" iron or the "Black" metal - So named due to the color of the metal after being heated (a key part of the blacksmithing process)."
|
On June 28 2011 07:34 Lucumo wrote:
^
"The term "blacksmith" comes from the activity of "smiting" iron or the "Black" metal - So named due to the color of the metal after being heated (a key part of the blacksmithing process)."
Sounds like a chicken/egg situation to me. What were they called before that? If they hadn't smithed the metal to make it black, yet, how could they be a blacksmith?! MIND BLOWN.
|
It is not a common provincial definition, it's a common mistake.
I just checked my latin dictionnary (the Gaffiot) and omnis does not only mean "all" but holds many similar significations, "everywhere", "whole", etc.
|
On June 28 2011 07:47 Kukaracha wrote:
It is not a common provincial definition, it's a common mistake.
I just checked my latin dictionnary (the Gaffiot) and omnis does not only mean "all" but holds many similar significations, "everywhere", "whole", etc.
I believe if a mistake is made enough, it should be allowed into language. I am not among the elitists who cant stand metagame being used incorrectly, and i understand the verb and pseudonoun versions of the word. I think it is sad that retarded is taken to mean stupid(as describing an action done by a mentally healthy person) but i understand when it is used..therefore, if it is a common mistake, shouldnt be allowed as a provincial definition?
|
On June 28 2011 07:34 Lucumo wrote:
^
"The term "blacksmith" comes from the activity of "smiting" iron or the "Black" metal - So named due to the color of the metal after being heated (a key part of the blacksmithing process)."
It's a made up story mate.
|
Do you also suggest making your, you're and youre the same correct word?
Words are not to be toyed with. People with a certain lexical knowledge can fill their writings with hidden meanings by knowing the etymology and history of the terms they use. You can't just change something as ignorance goes by... ignorance should be fought.
However, people do whatever they want with slang terms - thus words like "retarded" or "fag".
Also, not knowing the meaning of "omnipresent" does seem like a big mistake to me, with all due respect.
|
On June 28 2011 07:55 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 07:47 Kukaracha wrote:
It is not a common provincial definition, it's a common mistake.
I just checked my latin dictionnary (the Gaffiot) and omnis does not only mean "all" but holds many similar significations, "everywhere", "whole", etc. I believe if a mistake is made enough, it should be allowed into language. I am not among the elitists who cant stand metagame being used incorrectly, and i understand the verb and pseudonoun versions of the word. I think it is sad that retarded is taken to mean stupid(as describing an action done by a mentally healthy person) but i understand when it is used..therefore, if it is a common mistake, shouldnt be allowed as a provincial definition?
In that case irregardless should be a word...but its not because its redundant (or rather, it is a double negative being used as a single negative).
I always thought people used retarded to refer to someone who isn't mentally healthy - and that is why it is insulting to call someone retarded if they are mentally healthy. If you called someone a "whale", you are not changing or creating a new definition of whale to refer to a human being - you are insulting that human being by calling them an enormous sea mammal. Perhaps you use retarded wrong as well - but it never came back to bite you because used either way, it serves the purpose of being insulting.
|
On June 28 2011 08:02 halvorg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 07:34 Lucumo wrote:
^
"The term "blacksmith" comes from the activity of "smiting" iron or the "Black" metal - So named due to the color of the metal after being heated (a key part of the blacksmithing process)." It's a made up story mate.
Could very well be true and in the end, it doesn't matter anyway.
|
On June 28 2011 07:55 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 07:47 Kukaracha wrote:
It is not a common provincial definition, it's a common mistake.
I just checked my latin dictionnary (the Gaffiot) and omnis does not only mean "all" but holds many similar significations, "everywhere", "whole", etc. I believe if a mistake is made enough, it should be allowed into language. I am not among the elitists who cant stand metagame being used incorrectly, and i understand the verb and pseudonoun versions of the word. I think it is sad that retarded is taken to mean stupid(as describing an action done by a mentally healthy person) but i understand when it is used..therefore, if it is a common mistake, shouldnt be allowed as a provincial definition?
Without rules to regulate the usage of words and their meanings, how can we hope to express what we want clearly? If everyone has a different definition of a word then how would you even hope to use it properly? Although I suppose English is bastardized enough so it's no longer a battle worth fighting at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
