The Lone Weasel wrote:
> 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 era.
>
> What evidence do you have that Samuel Johnson knew anything
> about the US Constitutions, or our military institutions
> especially in the states?
>
Well let's see, there's a damn sight more evidence in his favor than
there is in yours. He wrote the first definitive dictionary of the
English language. A dictionary that over 200 years later is still called
"one of the most influential dictionaries in the history of the English
language." According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "It was the standard
English dictionary until Noah Webster's (1828)". Encyclopedia Britannica
goes on to say, "The original was followed in 1756 by an abbreviated
one-volume version that was widely used far into the 20th century".
His dictionary was considered THE STANDARD up until Webster published
his (1828) and it was in continuous use for over 200 years. Why would it
be in constant use for over 200 years you might ask... because the
meaning of the words had not changed.
In your favor, you're a self admitted liar.
It would appear, after due deliberation and consideration, that *all*
the evidence is in Dr. Johnson and Noah Webster's favor.
|
