Ken,
Thanks for the detailed response. We can always count on you for this
kind of depth & precision in matters lexicological.
I would like to add a particular emphasis on the *descriptive* nature
of these definitions, especially in English. Some languages are
defined prescriptively, but I prefer the OED way of doing it, which is
to base definitions on use. It facilitates language evolution and (if
you'll forgive me) more scientific. :)
This is important because it is, ideally at least, unbiased toward one
particular school of thought or another. In practice, perhaps we can
only say that descriptive definitions are less likely to be biased
than prescriptive forms.
When I quote definitions, I intend them descriptively; that is, I'm
not saying that there is some ideal definition distinct from usage,
but rather I use the definition simply as a substitute for the
collectives samples of usage in the living language. That's why I
keep nagging about the definition of research.
Cheers.
Fil
On 15 June 2011 09:18, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Fil and All,
>
> For those who are interested in the way that different lexicologists,
> linguists, and etymologists understand and define the word
> “research,” I append some of the selections I have harvested
> over the years from various sources.
> [...]
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|