"Magus" <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:wZzKi.104496$jH3.75266@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Scout wrote:
>> "Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> <snip>
>> You ability to misconstrue and misrepresent something has already been
>> established. If the meaning you claim is valid then surely it would be
in
>> an authoritative source such as Webster's, American Heritage, or even
>> Oxford. Heck, they even include archaic and obsolete meanings. So if
the
>> meaning you suggest is valid you should be able to find it somewhere. I
>> may even take a run down to the library later and see if I can supply
you
>> with a few more listings for the meaning of people from other and older
>> sources.
>>
>>
>
> Johnson and Walker's Dictionary of the English Language
> Second Edition, Revised and Corrected
> MDCCCXXVIII (1828)
>
> PEOPLE, A nation; those who compose a community; the vulgar; the
> commonalty; not the princes or nobles; persons of a particular class;
men
> or persons in general.
>
> To PEOPLE, To stock with inhabitants.
Nice one and very close to the time period in question. Yet, somehow I
suspect that Leif will once again assert that the Founding Fathers were
illiterate boobs who didn't know the meanings of the words they used. Sort
of like Leif himself is.
|
