Things that drive me nutz ...

[Lydiot]

I guess I just haven't been exposed to the "misuse" particularly often I have to say. If your objection is that "surrender" gives more information then I agree that it does, but even in such cases it really doesn't seem inaccurate to say "make peace by surrendering" for example, which obviously would be somewhat redundant but nevertheless correct, at least from what I can see.....

I personally have much bigger problems with;

their/they're/there
should of
your/you're

etc.

[jwocky]

You missed the point, I am only not sure whether it is intentional. "Make peace" respectively "make peace with" gives clearly an impression that both sides agreed on making peace. "Surrender" on the other side is the act of giving up everything you may hold dear, hand it over to your enemy, plead to his mercy and hope he doesn't treat you too bad. Which is why surrender is usually either an enforced act (the enemy has beaten you and you have no possibility to continue to fight on) or because you had some guys in your own ranks who didn't know this difference in meaning and just thought "making peace" sounds so good.

[Lydiot]

No, I didn't intentionally miss that point. I just missed it.

From what I can tell "make peace with" does actually not always give the impression of both sides agreeing on making peace, but rather the individual to whom the phrase applies. If I have to make peace with my parents accidental death it has nothing to do with them but instead my acceptance of that fact. If I make peace with a colleague with whom I often clash that too doesn't have to mean that I "surrender", but really that we come to an agreement in a lot of cases. And finally, I suppose there could be a military conflict in which there's a stalemate (as a metaphor) and rather than continue fighting both sides may come to an agreement. In that case I think it'd be fair to say that peace was made while neither side surrendered.

You seem to focus squarely on military contexts here (which is very interesting in and by itself) and of course in such contexts it may indeed be different most of the time the terms are (mis)used. But as I tried to say earlier, the term isn't used solely in military contexts.

[jwocky]

So, you actually make peace with your parent's death? No, because you lost something and you won't get it back and it will never be actually acceptable as fact. You accept the fact that you can't change it, So in fact, you don't make peace with your parent's death ... you only use the term wrong because it sounds better. Meaning vs sound bite.

[Lydiot]

So, you actually make peace with your parent's death? No, because you lost something and you won't get it back and it will never be actually acceptable as fact. You accept the fact that you can't change it,

Exactly, the idiom in that context really means "acceptance". I either accept that I can't get them back, or that I can't change it (same thing), or a million other things that go along with losing one's parents.

You can make peace with (the situation) that individuals have died. You can make peace with death itself, as a concept and inevitable end to your own life. You can make peace with never becoming Shakespeare..... etc.....

So in fact, you don't make peace with your parent's death ... you only use the term wrong because it sounds better. Meaning vs sound bite.

If you want to be picky about language then don't call it a "sound bite", because it's not. It's an idiom, or possibly "set phrase", but most certainly not a "sound bite".

It is what it is regardless of how hard you're trying to parse the individual words. Parsing individual words when they constitute a set phrase or idiom is just doomed to failure, because the meaning of it depends on ALL words in the phrase in the order in which they normally occur in that phrase, not the individual meaning of one word. You just can't extract "peace" and analyze it in military contexts and apply that to "make peace with". Language just doesn't work that way.

"It's raining cats and dogs." No, it isn't. Rain is what it is, and it isn't "cats and dogs". We know what cats and dogs are. We can define them and we can define raining. Yet it's an idiom that exists and works.

"That's just a red herring." Unless the person is actually looking at a herring that is red it's probably not a red herring at all. It's just another idiom pertaining to illogical argumentation.

"Actions speak louder than words." "Actions" don't speak at all, humans do.

etc.....

it is what it is....

[jwocky]

No no no, the point I don't like is the exchange of words and terms with a meaning against sound bites with the intention to make them more digestible.

"to make peace" is one example because it sounds so much better than "we surrender"

but there are so many more. A word I hear quite often in my line of work is "closure".
Now, what does "closure" actually mean? It means, obviously, the ability to "close an emotional burdening situation". The death of a loved one in a crime for example. For example if the killer is caught, that brings closure. Or if the killer is sentenced. Or, sometimes, when the killer is executed in some cases. KIt is a point on which oen feels now everything is known, now the questions can stop.
It is not the point on which suddenly by any magical effect, everything is good. People can be suddenly happy again and sing and dance. They can't. The dead are still dead, the lost are still lost. "Closure" doesn't describe such a magical point in time. "Closure" describes just a point at which all questions are answered and therefore, for some, a healing process can begin. Others heal without ever getting "closure". Others heal never, despite "closure".

Or, and I am well aware, that you will call me a racist again and ignore the problem with the words, take terms like "Hispanic" or "African-American". Those are political terms. But what do the words actually mean. A "Hispanic" is someone of descent from the originally Iberian cultural circle. Which includes also a lot of Central- and South-American countries. But to conclude from that all Hispanics would have the same genetically background is wrong, simply because in many of those countriesseveral genetic groups mixed quite freely. About 1/3 of the Hispanics coming from Peru for example could call themselves with the same right Native-Indian ... which is another such a weird term, because Indian is already based on a navigation mistake and they have of course no Indian (as in Bombay, Delhi and so on) ancestors. Well, actually some have, there came Imndian immigrants in their countries too. So ... as a matter of fact, "Hispanic" necessarily describes a cultural background. No race, no specigfic haplogroup, but a cultural background.
African-American is even worse. Because those people are usally Americans who have never ever seen Africa. So all they know about any "African" cultural background is a watered down fith-hand version adapted to the political needs of those who sold them those "culture". There is no closed "African culture" to begin with. Africa is a continent with some thousand years of history and has developed some dozens of different cultural models over time and got some others additionally pressed onto them. So, the whole term "African-American" is based on the misconception, there is a unified African culture, but there isn't. However, it is the only political correct term which makes it a label and, lets be honest here, not a nice one.
Now, take Israel and me as examples. Israel is I think, technically "Hispanic", I am, coming originally from Germany, a "Caucasian". Aside of the fact, the Caucasus is easily 2000 miles form wher eI was born and between the Caucasus and Germany live at least two dozen people with entirely different cultural models, yeah, right ...
So, what does Hispanic and Caucasian say about us? Maybe, I'm not ready to bet on it yet, Israel can eat hotter food than me? Maybe, who knows, I have an inbred immunity to grilled pork hogs and the cholesterol rush coming with it? Well, technically, those terms, Hispanic and Caucasian say nothing meaningful about any of us. They are just labels used by people overly obsessed with the idea of "race" which is a wrong term to begin with.

The point is, we all use words without thinking about them. Which is a dangerous thing. I mean, not "taking something FOR the flu", that is just ridiculous. But in many other case, this mindless use of language is dangerous. Today, someone used the term "to honour" in connection with Thorsten R. and his wish to have his space shuttle removed from FGMEMBERS. The actual thing 2would have been "bowing to his bullying and make us an accomplice in his license scams". But "to honour" sounded so much better, doesn't it? It makes this whole nasty business, almost acceptable, making it look nice, like something, it would be the real thing to do. We "honour" ... wait, the facts didn't change, only the label. The lies, the scam behind it is still the same. Only this twisted use of "to honour" covered it all up. It's like Febreze on a really stinky thing. You don't smell it anymore, but the crap is still there.

Her is another one of my "hate terms". Soldiers fall in wars. What, do the stumble, why don't they get up again? Did someone push them? Maybe someone should help them to get up again?
But nobody can. Because "to fall" is used to cover up the nasty reality of being shot, getting the head blown off, drowning, stabbed to death, strangled, beaten to death or blown to pieces.
So yes, Lydiot, there are terms that are widely accepted for those "language use cover ups". But occasionally, we need also some honesty with us self and with all the people around and have to speak out the reality. We can put those pinky glasses on language, but it makes it only express social delusions, not reality anymore. And that is why this organized language abuse is dangerous.

[Lydiot]

No no no, the point I don't like is the exchange of words and terms with a meaning against sound bites with the intention to make them more digestible.

"to make peace" is one example because it sounds so much better than "we surrender"

Again, "Sound bites" is something else. It doesn't apply to this conversation.

But go back to your very first post and read the definitions you chose of "surrender" and "peace". Heck, just consider the words right now without doing so: "Surrender" is a verb, and "peace" is a noun!

So, you can achieve peace by someone surrendering. And achieving peace is what some people think of when they say "make peace" - in some contexts. Therefore you can make peace by surrendering. Surrender creates peace. The words aren't the same and you can't say that all people all of the time really mean "surrender" when they use "make peace", because that's simply not the case.

And that leads again to the categorical error you're committing by extracting one word from an idiom and then taking that word literally. It's exactly the same thing as extracting "raining" and "dogs" from the idiom and then analyzing both literally and objecting to the meaning of the idiom ("It's raining cats and dogs"). It simply makes zero sense to do that.

but there are so many more. A word I hear quite often in my line of work is "closure".
Now, what does "closure" actually mean? It means, obviously, the ability to "close an emotional burdening situation". The death of a loved one in a crime for example. For example if the killer is caught, that brings closure. Or if the killer is sentenced. Or, sometimes, when the killer is executed in some cases. KIt is a point on which oen feels now everything is known, now the questions can stop.
It is not the point on which suddenly by any magical effect, everything is good. People can be suddenly happy again and sing and dance. They can't. The dead are still dead, the lost are still lost. "Closure" doesn't describe such a magical point in time. "Closure" describes just a point at which all questions are answered and therefore, for some, a healing process can begin. Others heal without ever getting "closure". Others heal never, despite "closure".

Or, and I am well aware, that you will call me a racist again and ignore the problem with the words, take terms like "Hispanic" or "African-American". Those are political terms. But what do the words actually mean. A "Hispanic" is someone of descent from the originally Iberian cultural circle. Which includes also a lot of Central- and South-American countries. But to conclude from that all Hispanics would have the same genetically background is wrong, simply because in many of those countriesseveral genetic groups mixed quite freely. About 1/3 of the Hispanics coming from Peru for example could call themselves with the same right Native-Indian ... which is another such a weird term, because Indian is already based on a navigation mistake and they have of course no Indian (as in Bombay, Delhi and so on) ancestors. Well, actually some have, there came Imndian immigrants in their countries too. So ... as a matter of fact, "Hispanic" necessarily describes a cultural background. No race, no specigfic haplogroup, but a cultural background.
African-American is even worse. Because those people are usally Americans who have never ever seen Africa. So all they know about any "African" cultural background is a watered down fith-hand version adapted to the political needs of those who sold them those "culture". There is no closed "African culture" to begin with. Africa is a continent with some thousand years of history and has developed some dozens of different cultural models over time and got some others additionally pressed onto them. So, the whole term "African-American" is based on the misconception, there is a unified African culture, but there isn't. However, it is the only political correct term which makes it a label and, lets be honest here, not a nice one.
Now, take Israel and me as examples. Israel is I think, technically "Hispanic", I am, coming originally from Germany, a "Caucasian". Aside of the fact, the Caucasus is easily 2000 miles form wher eI was born and between the Caucasus and Germany live at least two dozen people with entirely different cultural models, yeah, right ...
So, what does Hispanic and Caucasian say about us? Maybe, I'm not ready to bet on it yet, Israel can eat hotter food than me? Maybe, who knows, I have an inbred immunity to grilled pork hogs and the cholesterol rush coming with it? Well, technically, those terms, Hispanic and Caucasian say nothing meaningful about any of us. They are just labels used by people overly obsessed with the idea of "race" which is a wrong term to begin with.

The point is, we all use words without thinking about them.

Yes, but you objected to an idiom. An idiom has to be seen as a whole entity, not individual parts. I agree that some of the above is poorly defined and sometimes for political reasons. I don't think it's racist to point that out. But they're not idioms.

in many other case, this mindless use of language is dangerous.

I absolutely agree.

Today, someone used the term "to honour" in connection with Thorsten R. and his wish to have his space shuttle removed from FGMEMBERS. The actual thing 2would have been "bowing to his bullying and make us an accomplice in his license scams". But "to honour" sounded so much better, doesn't it? It makes this whole nasty business, almost acceptable, making it look nice, like something, it would be the real thing to do. We "honour" ... wait, the facts didn't change, only the label. The lies, the scam behind it is still the same. Only this twisted use of "to honour" covered it all up. It's like Febreze on a really stinky thing. You don't smell it anymore, but the crap is still there.

It's not a twisted use:

honoredhonoring play \ˈä-nə-riŋ, ˈän-riŋ\

transitive verb

1
a : to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor b : to give special recognition to : to confer honor on

2
a : to live up to or fulfill the terms of <honor a commitment> b : to accept as payment <honor a credit card>

3
: to salute with a bow in square dancing

The usage, if you're referring to Hooray's use of the word (American spelling) recently, refers to two people coming to a mutual agreement, a commitment, and then both honoring the terms of that; "developers should mutually honor their wishes". The context in which he used the term was simply that since FGMembers is functioning more like a collection of models rather than a place to collaborate the issue is moot - but it would have been better if it was collaborative and then users would have 'honored each other's wishes'.

I think his usage is linguistically correct. And I think your interpretation of what his point was is actually wrong. You're being far too emotional about it to see it rationally.

Her is another one of my "hate terms". Soldiers fall in wars. What, do the stumble, why don't they get up again? Did someone push them? Maybe someone should help them to get up again?
But nobody can. Because "to fall" is used to cover up the nasty reality of being shot, getting the head blown off, drowning, stabbed to death, strangled, beaten to death or blown to pieces.

I think "covering up" is the wrong term to use to describe it, it's just a blanket term that means "dying". It's simply trying to convey that people died, not the specifics of it. But I will agree with you however that "fallen" is a far softer expression than "dead", so in that sense I agree with you, it does tend to mitigate the nasty reality of war. But my objection to it isn't so much about the literal definition of "falling" as it is about the word being somewhat softer (which is something you can achieve by using other words with the same literal meaning anyway).

So yes, Lydiot, there are terms that are widely accepted for those "language use cover ups". But occasionally, we need also some honesty with us self and with all the people around and have to speak out the reality. We can put those pinky glasses on language, but it makes it only express social delusions, not reality anymore. And that is why this organized language abuse is dangerous.

Yes, honesty and correct use of language is important, as is speaking the truth and correctly describing reality. I agree with all of that. I just don't think your examples are that great to be honest.

[FL2070]

jwocky be like:

"Free speech for everybody!..

as long as they use terms that don't bug me."

[jwocky]

Well, obviously, nobody will be banned for using those words and terms incorrectly. So FL2070, you critique just went into the empty room.

Now ... Lydiot ...

But go back to your very first post and read the definitions you chose of "surrender" and "peace". Heck, just consider the words right now without doing so: "Surrender" is a verb, and "peace" is a noun!

You may want to consider, that you started with a term, "make peace". "Make" was lst time I looked a verb and "make st." is also a verb. So what are you trying here, ripping your own term to pieces?

So, you can achieve peace by someone surrendering. And achieving peace is what some people think of when they say "make peace" - in some contexts. Therefore you can make peace by surrendering. Surrender creates peace. The words aren't the same and you can't say that all people all of the time really mean "surrender" when they use "make peace", because that's simply not the case.

You want to stop twist my words like a career politician. I never said "make peace is always surrender" I said, people use "making peace" too often when they actually mean surrender. Following your logic, we should burn FGMEMBERS, TerraGIT, all planes IT0uchPods, Bomber, IAHM-COL and I ever made (and those of some other authors), write off on Thorsten's license scams and then call that "making peace", not "surrender" because it sounds better. See, that's the difference between us. I make my stand and I see currently no reason to surrender and it would be surrender. Giving away all you hold dear, all you worked for, to a bully. And then find a nice sound bite to make it look better.
We could of course implement Shariah law in the US and all become Muslims ... to "make peace".

And that leads again to the categorical error you're committing by extracting one word from an idiom and then taking that word literally. It's exactly the same thing as extracting "raining" and "dogs" from the idiom and then analyzing both literally and objecting to the meaning of the idiom ("It's raining cats and dogs"). It simply makes zero sense to do that.

See, "raining cats and dogs" is a commonly used term and it expresses pretty clearly what is meant. Even it doesn't rain any kind of animals literally. But you knew that. So, you are intentionally try to find one working term to claim, all thoughts about wrong used terms are wrong. Again, you should aim for a career in politics with that ability to twist into the realm of faulty logic. Lets try something:

"All persons with full beards are men" ... does that mean all men have full beards

Now, people grinned, of course not all men have full beards, right? But ...



See, the failure was already in the first part "All persons with full beards are men" ... nope, it is rare, but it is not an exlusive. But that is thre kind of logic you apply here backwards.

Yes, but you objected to an idiom. An idiom has to be seen as a whole entity, not individual parts. I agree that some of the above is poorly defined and sometimes for political reasons. I don't think it's racist to point that out. But they're not idioms.

That was about the other examples. So, why is "Hispanic" not an idiom? Or "African-American" or "fallen"? Because they are one worders or in the case of "African-American" hyphenated?
Looking again into Merriam-Webster (btw, the earlier definitions were also from there, not something, I made up), we find ...

Simple Definition of idiom

: an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own

: a form of a language that is spoken in a particular area and that uses some of its own words, grammar, and pronunciations

: a style or form of expression that is characteristic of a particular person, type of art, etc.

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Since the US are a little too big to count as "particular area" and since obviously more than one person uses terms like "African-American", that leaves us the first one. Which is exactly the problem. "Make" would mean crafting, building, maybe even carving or painting sometihng, in short creating something. "Peace" would be a state of coexistence without violent conflict. But pulled together, "make peace" becomes also a political correct idiom for "surrender" in many cases. Which of course wouldn't prevent anybody from using it also in a word by word meaning, as non-idiom.
Here is a brutal one for you to see the difference ... "It's raining men" meansw as idion, there are lot of (hopefully nice and attractive) men around ... that is what the idiom, that was made into the well-known song expressed.
On 9/11 it was raining men ... literally ... and it was not a nice picture!

So, when you quote the definition of "honor" and then said, the use D-Echo made of it was not twisted, you lost me entirely. Lets have a look ...

honoredhonoring play \ˈä-nə-riŋ, ˈän-riŋ\

transitive verb

1
a : to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect : to regard or treat with honor b : to give special recognition to : to confer honor on

2
a : to live up to or fulfill the terms of <honor a commitment> b : to accept as payment <honor a credit card>

3
: to salute with a bow in square dancing

So, ad 1 ... to bow to a bully, thief and license scammer is surely a sign of admiration ... but only if you amdire his skills as criminal. I can at this point see nothing in the actual case about Thorsten's Space Shuttle that would cause admiration or respect.

Maybe you mea definition 2? There was never a commitment to accept Thorsten's license scams and his surreal claims and his attempts to change history all the time as it fits him. Nobody ever signed "we support your criminal activities". Therefore, there is no commitment to honor to begin with.

Humm definition 3 maybe? I don't know, were D-ECHO and Thorsten square dancing? Why did they do so in the FGMEMBERS repository then and why was Thorsten not even there ... so I really doubt, this square dance definition cuts is.

The way "to honor" was used in that case (D-ECHO on FGMEMBERS) was used as a nice looking wording for "let the bully have his will" in another attempt "to make peace with" the bully by "surrendering". And that is really twisted.

Even if you look at Hooray's use of "to honor", it is the same problem. He says "mutually honor their wishes" ... See, that is exactly the problem. Opposite to you, I did a lot of plane work, nobody honors my wishes and there is no need to. Why because it is GPL. If I would have wanted something else, I could have used something else. Even more, if I use another author's work as base and this base is GPL, Ihave to honor this. Means, I can't change the license which means, my work, I add is either GPL or I have to put it in an extra package. Simply that. I can't just add some lines and claim those are not GPL and therefore the whole package isn't GPL anymore, like Thorsten did. I have to honor the wishes of all the authors before me, as clearly expressed by their use of GPL licenses.
Now, here comes 2.) from your definition in. When I as author decide to publish my work under GPL, I commit to that. I can't just say next week and because a guy I don't like flies thatplane, I change now retroactively the license. I have to honor the commitment, I made.
So, while Hooray talks about "honoring wishes", he actually means "the wishes of certain, but by far not all authors, as it is politically convenient". That has nothing to do with "honor", that is just a political ploy. In the context, it means, Hooray said "we all have to honor Thorsten's wishes even if that means, to disrepect the wihes of all other authors who contributed to the whole." This logic goes even further if you look at the "owner" concept favored over there. Because it means, since Thorsten declared himself the owner (of works of HerbyW, Wibrag, Israel, the data that came from NASA and God knows who else), his wishes are strong enough to break even definition 2 and the commitment those authors made by using the GPL license. So, how twisted is that? Are you going to explain to the NASA, their data, published for free use, is not free anymore because Thorsten is not their owner?

Of course, those are facts, so your only way out, as usually will be now the "emotional" line. As in "you think, against all facts and proof, that it is okay" and that I am "way too emotional to think clear". Which is another typical example for language use by career politicians. You can't beat the facts, just declare the other guy as too emotional ... you don't want to do that on this forum. You won't get banned, you will get called out for this kind of "smart lies"

Here is another one,

I wrote ...

Her is another one of my "hate terms". Soldiers fall in wars. What, do the stumble, why don't they get up again? Did someone push them? Maybe someone should help them to get up again?
But nobody can. Because "to fall" is used to cover up the nasty reality of being shot, getting the head blown off, drowning, stabbed to death, strangled, beaten to death or blown to pieces.

and you responded ...

I think "covering up" is the wrong term to use to describe it, it's just a blanket term that means "dying". It's simply trying to convey that people died, not the specifics of it. But I will agree with you however that "fallen" is a far softer expression than "dead", so in that sense I agree with you, it does tend to mitigate the nasty reality of war. But my objection to it isn't so much about the literal definition of "falling" as it is about the word being somewhat softer (which is something you can achieve by using other words with the same literal meaning anyway).

You are wrong. "falling" can't be a blanket term for "dying" because there are obviously people who don't fall and still die (think about from old age or from diseases, those are not covered by "have fallen") and even people who actually fall and still don fall under the idiomatic scope of "fallen soldiers" (9/11 and raining men).
You idea of simply conveying that people died without specifics is also kind of doubtful, If that was the case, we could use terms like "killed" or the always popular military abbreviations KIA and MIA. And yes, I made a little bit a bloody joke about the literal meaning of "to fall".Actually, it wasn't even my joke, I pulled it from Lothar-Günther Buchheim who used it in connection with submariners. It was one of those attempts to bring people to think ... obviously people hate it when authors try to do that.

Sooooo, at the end of your post, you have defended intentional wrong language use for the purpose of political correctness as defined by the one or other faction twice, made a nice case for surrendering to all bullies because it's so nice "to make peace", have tried some stupid politician's rhetoric on my with your "emotional" line and thus effectively demonstrated why this slopps use of language when it swings into the intentional is dangerous, butI am so happy that you agree with me about that ... oh wait ... you agreed and then you tried to put exactly those examples on the sidetrack because you "honestly" think, they are not so great. See, I love it when your little tricks backfire so badly. You think ... well, actually you have an opinion ... and you use "honestly" to make the impression, your opinion is an absolute truth. See, you can always claim that you didn't know, this expressing an opinion in connection with honestly and without proving the fact isn't one of the oldest trick in the books. I will, honestly, never be able to prove you knew and did it intentional because I have of course no backup copy of your memory.

[FL2070]

I'm sorry. It was a joke.