ummm... Jailor Jim here. I have to say that those arguing loudest for strict literalism in written communications appear least rigorous at applying it. I could be wrong, but i don't believe i've tried to defend, justify or promote the gradual redefinition of words. I am merely pointing out what (i believe to be) the facts about how language works. Maybe i've let slip with a line or two that implies personal support of this process... can't imagine i would, but who knows?
As i said (further down somewhere), i used the word "schizophrenic" in its 'colloquial' sense... i applied the meaning that (i believe) is far more common and accepted than the medical definition (and oh, by the way, check out the dictionary definition of "schizophrenic"... it includes "2. Of, relating to, or characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements" - so maybe the literalists might do some fookin' research before making wild accusations).
And RG, I am not unfamiliar with mental illness; and to imply - even in jest - that i support the incarceration of those diagnosed with schizophrenia (just because Blunkett is unaware of the inappropriateness of applying the colloquial definition where the medical one is required) is a little below the belt.
|