This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Religious are only moral because they get eternal life....

#31BtVSFanPosted 7/28/2011 12:55:46 PM
From: kts123 | #029
That's not how the word is used in common English. Here are a few bajillion articles dug up from a google news search for the word "everyone." Notice how not a single instance here is used to mean literally everyone. (Likely because, there are almost always exceptions to everything.)


See post 24. They're using the word incorrectly. Everybody does not mean somebody, or most, it means all. That is what the word literally means, and assuming against that meaning is not something I do.

From: kozlo100 | #030
Going by that, your gripe would be wholly legitimate if I had said "Alternatively: Every one is moral...", but my usage as written appears to be acceptable according to that dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/everyone

everyone (n) - every person.

Either way, this has gone on entirely too long. I know what you mean now.
---
Someone's carryin' a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is, die of old age before it finds you - Mal
http://i36.tinypic.com/23yqa.jpg
#32kozlo100Posted 7/28/2011 1:33:39 PM
this has gone on entirely too long.

It has departed or left so as to be or remain supported by or suspended from entirely too long? ;-)

Probably shouldn't have used an informal idiom when quoting a dictionary definition in response to a note on word usage. Clearly you understand that words don't always have carry their exact dictionary definitions.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#33BtVSFanPosted 7/28/2011 1:39:36 PM
From: kozlo100 | #032
this has gone on entirely too long.

It has departed or left so as to be or remain supported by or suspended from entirely too long? ;-)

Probably shouldn't have used an informal idiom when quoting a dictionary definition in response to a note on word usage. Clearly you understand that words don't always have carry their exact dictionary definitions.


I do. But words like "everyone" where the component words are so plain? Using those in a way that goes against their literal meaning? It confuses things, as this topic has absolutely demonstrated.
---
Someone's carryin' a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is, die of old age before it finds you - Mal
http://i36.tinypic.com/23yqa.jpg
#34kozlo100Posted 7/28/2011 1:59:45 PM(edited)
But words like "everyone" where the component words are so plain?

You mean like 'gone' being used in an idiom to indicate continual presence?

It confuses things

I don't think that it does. Five to two rate of understanding the message, and even then I suspect Fox was only trying to pick a fight. If true, that leaves you as the only member of my intended audience to miss the meaning.

Given that the form and style were an intentional part of the message, I'm comfortable with that rate of understanding. I'd chose the same words over again without hesitation.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#35kts123(Topic Creator)Posted 7/29/2011 8:43:37 AM(edited)
See post 24. They're using the word incorrectly. Everybody does not mean somebody, or most, it means all. That is what the word literally means, and assuming against that meaning is not something I do.

Look buster, you didn't nit pick his word usage, you misunderstood him. You weren't the kind grammar fairy come to alleviate Kozlo of his mistaken word usage, you read what he said and didn't understand it. Any speaker of the English language knows that the word "everyone" is used to mean "sans a few rare exceptions." And if you want, I can keep producing mountains of news articles and books where authors and journalists use the word in that sense.

The fact you misunderstood what he meant, is a clear indicator you either have poor English skills (which I doubt.) OR, from what I gather, you entered this thread looking for some uninformed comment to correct (or, had objective morality on the brain.) Of course I can't read minds, but that's how the usual cognitive bias goes. If you truly realized that the majority of the population misuse the word on a daily basis, then you wouldn't have gotten confused in the first place, because you would have known most people aren't using the word in the strict sense. But now the entire focus of your argument has shifted -- from Kozlo having confusing word choice, to admitting most people use that word choice (which would mean it most certainly shouldn't be confusing, since most of us use that wording all the time and no one else gets confused.)