Magus <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> Scout wrote:
>> "Magus" <Nope@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:wZzKi.104496$jH3.75266@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Scout wrote:
>>>> "Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> 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.
>
> The definitions, for those words, are identical in Dr.
> Johnson's earlier "A dictionary of the English language: in
> which the words are deduced from their originals, and
> illustrated in their different significations by examples
> from the best writers." London : Printed by W. Strahan,
> 1755.
>
> Dr. Johnson's 1755 dictionary is the earliest English
> dictionary I currently have access to.
>
> According to Henry Hitchings in "Defining the World: The
> Extraordinary Story of Dr. Johnson's
> Dictionary(Farrar,Straus, & Giroux, NY, 2005)" Dr.
> Johnson's dictionary was the first to comprehensively
> do***ent the English lexicon. Earlier dictionaries tended
> to be poorly organized, poorly researched, and nothing more
> than glossaries of "hard words"; words that were technical,
> foreign, obscure, antiquated, etc.
>
> So, I'd hazard to guess that Dr. Johnson's dictionary along
> with Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary are the best
> references to use when determining the meaning of words
> during the Founding ear.
What evidence do you have that Samuel Johnson knew anything
about the US Constitutions, or our military institutions
especially in the states?
Johnson was your last hope, Magoo?
Denied.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
|
