Dictionaries?

I don't know if this is a proper place for this; however, supposing that it is the case that for a large number of words their meaning is their use in particular contexts (or language games, as it were), of what use is a dictionary? It appears that dictionaries present "potential" meanings of words, or would using a dictionary be a paradox because recursion would eventually happen?

Well, in Engalnd, in the 18th century, they were originally set up to standardise 'the King's English', etc.

Their only use today, it seems, is

1) To list standard/common uses of certain words;

2) Assist those who do not know what a certain word means (but then they will have to know how to use the words in which a given word is defined);

3) To standardise spellings.

In respect to dialectics, I have posted this here before:

However, with regard to the latter point, several comments made in another Essay of mine about certain dictionary definitions of the word "contradiction" are apposite:

To be sure, one online dictionary says the following sort of thing:

"contradiction, n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas..."

However, it is worth recalling that dictionaries are repositories of usage, and are neither normative nor prescriptive. Here, this dictionary is clearly recording the dialectical use of this word, post dialectical materialism. That does not imply that this word actually eans anything when used this way. It also defines the word "Nirvana" --, but which materialist wants to admit that that word actually means anything (that is, apart from its emotional import)?

Indeed, they 'define' many things dialecticians would disagree with. For example:

"God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

"The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

"An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

"One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god...."

And:

"negation n 1: a negative statement; a statement that is a refusal or denial of some other statement 2: the speech act of negating 3: (logic) a proposition that is true if and only if another proposition is false."

No mention here of "sublation" or the negation of the negation, but does that force dialecticians into accepting this 'definition'? Of course not; they pick and choose when it suits them.

Consider the definition of "wage":

"1. Payment for labour or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

"2. wages Economics The portion of the national product that represents the aggregate paid for all contributing labour and services as distinguished from the portion retained by management or reinvested in capital goods.

"3. A fitting return; a recompense."

"An amount of money paid to a worker for a specified quantity of work, usually expressed on an hourly basis."

Are there any Marxists who would accept this definition of what wages really are?

Hence, dictionaries record ideology as much as they record use or meaning.

With respect to "contradiction", the writers of the first dictionary above have plainly recorded the animistic use of this word employed by DM-fans.

As this shows, since no literal sense can be made of the equation of forces and contradictions, dialecticians should not believe all they read in dictionaries (or Thesauruses).

This Wiki article is quite good, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary

If you ignore what this book says about Voloshinov, this is excellent:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A...page&q&f=false

I figured as much about "standardizing" English (I know a thing or two about the convoluted history of English language). But am I even arguing right with that jackass Red Cat? I have this odd feeling I'm not doing a good job of it.

Well, you seem to be doing quite well. However, arguing with a determined dialectician is like wrestling in syrup.

If you need any advice, PM me.