Securing Electricity Meter Cupboard

[JohnD]

I do not have online access to the OED.

Funnily enough, I do have access to a hardcopy.

The entry for "fruit" will not be one line saying "that part of the plant which contains the seeds"

a fruit?

I don't know where you found your preferred definition. It must be a very shoddy dictionary if it says nothing more.

 

[Jadele]

OP did you secure your meter box? If so post a pic

They rest of you need to go here LOL http://linguistforum.com/semantics-and-pragmatics/

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not have online access to the OED.

You only have to Google "word definition" and it is an option.

I don't know where you found your preferred definition.

I did precis it but I don't think that detracts.
I discounted the fruits of your loins.

It must be a very shoddy dictionary if it says nothing more.

IT IS although others agree.

 

[JohnD]

So, one will be wrong.

You are foolish to tell a chef he is wrong if he classifies a strawberry tart among his fruit pastries.

p.s.

Your link is not to the OED, which is a very large and very comprehensive source, and is a specific book in multiple volumes. I will try not to comment on your incorrect use of a term which is very specific and describes a particular thing. Ooops, I failed.

http://www.oed.com/

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-OXFOR...710005?hash=item465b22ad75:g:2rUAAOSwux5YYBmx

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh, beg pardon about the link.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ignoramus is a verb, not a noun.

I'd say the OED is as near as we have to a "definitive" dictionary.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

is a cauliflower a flower?

Yes.

 

[JohnD]

OK, then.

In English, "Ignoramus" is used as a noun. As an English word, its plural is "Ignoramuses"
cf. "bus"

In Latin, it is a first-person plural verb, and has no plural. The invented "Ignorami" has no foundation.

Oxford Living Dictionaries are not the same as the OED. I'm sure the OED will explain its derivation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In English, "Ignoramus" is used as a noun.

I believe that we are using English here. Therefore it is a noun.

As an English word, its plural is "Ignoramuses"

That is true.

In Latin, it is a first-person plural verb, and has no plural.

In German, 'mist' does not mean a light fog.

We aren't using Latin here, so 'ignoramus' is a noun.

The invented "Ignorami" has no foundation.

That is true, but then neither did the use of "electrocute" to mean "electric shock". Remember that the first duty of the lexicographer is not to decide how people should speak, it is to discover how people do speak.

There are many back-formations in the dictionaries. I'm just in the vanguard with "ignorami".

Oxford Living Dictionaries are not the same as the OED.

Same organisation.

I'm sure the OED will explain its derivation.

Sadly I can't afford the OED. But other dictionaries also say where it originated.

 

[JohnD]

I know what "mist" means.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, is the only dictionary that you will believe be the one none of us can read?

You are foolish to tell a chef he is wrong if he classifies a strawberry tart among his fruit pastries.

Maybe, but he would not actually be correct, would he?

 

[JohnD]

Strawberries were called "fruit" and "berries" long before taxonomists began their obsessive hobby.

If you believe that old meanings take priority over new ones, you must say that the taxonomists are wrong.

In fact, however, words can have different meanings according to their context, and how they are understood by the people who use and hear them.

What is an "anchor?" What is a "screw?"

Would you go to the fruit counter or the flower stall or the vegetable counter for raspberries, tomatoes, cauliflowers or sunflowers? Where would any other sane person go?

 

[JohnD]

When you are familiar with a language, you understand it with ease

Some languages insist on different words to ensure understanding

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you believe that old meanings take priority over new ones, you must say that the taxonomists are wrong.

But you won't accept the same for the examples which started the discussion.

In fact, however, words can have different meanings according to their context, and how they are understood by the people who use and hear them.

They do, but that does not mean they are correct.

What is an "anchor?" What is a "screw?"

It's no good keeping on asking what single words 'are' without explaining what you have in mind.

Would you go to the fruit counter or the flower stall or the vegetable counter for raspberries, tomatoes, cauliflowers or sunflowers?

Well, being very logical, I would go to where they are for sale, regardless.
Just like if I want a key, I will go to the cobblers.

Where would any other sane person go?

I presume they would do the same.

 

[JohnD]

But you won't accept the same for the examples which started the discussion.

I do not assert that older meanings take priority over new ones.

In fact, however, words can have different meanings according to their context, and how they are understood by the people who use and hear them.

It's a nice point, as Lord Wellesley would have said.

It's no good keeping on asking what single words 'are' without explaining what you have in mind.

I am demonstrating that words are not frozen into a single usage or meaning.