Silly me - I used www.dictionary.com

Post #116,866 by broomberg 9/6/03 9:47:49 AM Reply	Silly me - I used www.dictionary.com I was reading the sentence and enjoying it. While I did convert it to "irrational" as I read it, it annoys me. I work with too many marketing people who use words haphazardly. They get annoyed when I try to pin a specific definition on what they say. Or argue the meaning when they use something wrong. Too dangerous when discussing system capabilities or customer promises. I want to know what I am being committed to. Based on Googling, I would say that your usage is almost opposite what the "accepted" (dangerous term to apply to the results of a Google search, but I gotta go with what you point me to when I can't find an autoratative source) usage is. Better term would be "popular" usage. In a staggering display of transrational behavior, C-R proponents frequently and vociferously blame this failure of C-R on the unwillingness of bystanders to be drawn into the misguided system. Somewhat contradictory in my newly learned popular usage. So what you are saying is C-R proponents KNOW (at an advanced "intuitional level") that some people SHOULD willingly accept being drawn into a "misguided" system. Either "transrational" or "misguided" need to go or I need to accept that you are the final arbitrator of what language means on you home pages, which means I can never be sure of understanding what you write.
Post #116,869 by folkert 9/6/03 10:18:24 AM Reply	He think C-R is "misguided"... He mixed what people using them think a transrational (good) C-R system is... Then label those Systems they want to use as "misguided" by His Plain old self... remove "misguided" and the problem disappears. It the interjection of the Karstenism of C-R systems that is bothering you. The people using them DON'T think they are misguided... hence thay are using them. Misguided == Karsten's opinion, and quite a few others... including me. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Transrationally misguided from the beginning.
Post #116,880 by FuManChu 9/6/03 1:09:47 PM Reply	It is the popular users who are wrong. They have juxtaposed the wrong part of "transcendental" with "rational" to create "transrational" in an attempt to justify their belief in transcendence. Similar mistake to "posture-pedic". Karsten is using "transrational" in its correct form. "Irrational" would simply mean "without rationality". "Transrational" is used to imply there is a rational process present; however, it has changed to the opposite of "normal" rationality, cf. [link\|http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=84393&dict=CALD\|http://dictionary.ca...y=84393&dict=CALD] "There's a set of rules that anything that was in the world when you were born is normal and natural. Anything invented between when you were 15 and 35 is new and revolutionary and exciting, and you'll probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things." Douglas Adams
Post #116,887 by deSitter 9/6/03 1:21:11 PM Reply	Re: It is the popular users who are wrong. Alright, I could have missed something, but "transrational" would be a good thing - when Poincare stepped on that bus and was instantly confronted with the solution to the problem of Fuchsian functions he'd been seeking for months, he was acting "transrationally". It's a fancy word for "intuitive". -drl
Post #116,893 by FuManChu 9/6/03 1:45:33 PM Reply	Doesn't mean you should use the wrong term. You're trying to use "transrational" to mean "outside of rationality". But "trans-" as a root means "across" or "changed". The only context in which it gains the meaning of "outside of" is when your other root implies a boundary or movement: words like "transcendent" = "to climb across". "Transrational" does neither. You can't simply borrow a prefix from one context and apply it to another, hoping to gain the implications of the original word. When you get a blood transfusion, thank your lucky stars it does not mean "to pour out". Ditto for transplant. Perhaps that was the "complication" in Poincare's surgery... "There's a set of rules that anything that was in the world when you were born is normal and natural. Anything invented between when you were 15 and 35 is new and revolutionary and exciting, and you'll probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things." Douglas Adams
Post #116,895 by broomberg 9/6/03 1:51:00 PM Reply	My favorite confusing word inflammable [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inflammable\|http://dictionary.re...rch?q=inflammable] vs flammable [link\|http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flammable\|http://dictionary.re...earch?q=flammable]
Post #116,912 by kmself 9/6/03 6:31:20 PM Reply	transrational: nelogism. Taking leave of reason If I'm not being clear: yes, it's a word I'm using in my own sense, which should be clear from context. While the word doesn't exist in a host of dictionaries checked (Debian's onboard dicts, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary of English, among others), there is usage on the Web. \r\n\r\n Most of this usage is of the "here's a new fluffy transcendental term we're going to use to hype some concept". This isn't my useage. \r\n\r\n The inspiration is probably a conversation I had many moons ago with a college friend, who, describing her current social life in response to "so are you dating foo", was "I've transcended relationships". She meant that as deep. I read it as very shallow. There's also the CEO of a former employer who was commonly described among cow-orkers as having an extremely nonlinear thought process. Scattered would have been a vast improvement. \r\n\r\n My use of transrational is "transcending -- going beyond -- rationality". Which is taking leave of rationality. Not in a good sense, but in the sense of abandoning reason altogether. \r\n\r\n I'm not suggesting that transrational come into common usage. I'm using it largely for its novel, above-and-beyond meaning. Very much satirically. Folks doing otherwise violate the Fifth Rule flagrantly. Given that the One True Meaning hasn't been hammered down, we linguistic fifth columnists can undertake preservation of the language by all means, rational or otherwise. \r\n\r\n For an example of another word whose meaning was grossly polluted by a linguistic poseur, Stephen Covey. Check out Merriam-Webster's first definition for what the word meant initially. I detest the secondary meaning's common usage. --\r\n Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link\|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/\|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
Post #117,190 by drewk 9/9/03 9:25:43 AM Reply	ICCoolNewWord I can't find an autoratative source Isn't that a kind of helicopter? === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #117,195 by Another Scott 9/9/03 9:50:47 AM Reply	No, it's a new machine gun.
Post #117,287 by Ashton 9/9/03 7:38:01 PM Reply	Do I discern a bit of satisfiction here?

Welcome to IWETHEY!