>>>
>>>Still trying to get in a blow from that debate huh ? Sigh, if you check
>>>you'd see that we were not referring to technical terms developed within a
>>>specialised field in maths or science which aren't in general use, but to
>>>the definition of "film" - a term in general use.
>>>
>>>The rest of your argument, apart from being confused, is therefore
>>>irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>>I'm sorry, I really don't see the distinction. Perhaps you could explain
>>yourself more clearly.
>>
>>j. daigle
>
>Where scientists or mathematicians use existing words they usually give
>precise definitions of the new, limited, technical sense in which they
>propose to use them.
>Those seeking to define "film" are not usually proposing some more
>restricted, technical sense of "film;" they are seeking a general
>definition which will account for the existing variety of things commonly
>referred to as "films". If the definition rules out some obvious examples
>of what are normally referred to as "films," it will be inadequte as a
>general definition.
>
>Clear enough ?
neither would a definition that excluded the extra-cinematic meanings of
the word "film."
louis
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|