>>Paulus asked me to chip in on this. I avoid online forums usually (found plenty of reasons here to carry on like this! ;-). But for a friend...<<
> What an extraordinarily arrogant comment to make but, as you've decided to take up the mantle on Paulus behalf, may I ask why?

Crikey, can I say, another reason I usually avoid online forums? ;-) The total absence of body language and personal contact, combined with the lack of time to devote to subtleties of expression that you have writing essays, seem to leave everyone reading between the lines, assuming the worst about people's attitudes with dismaying frequency! I find that emoticons often compensate - as above, I was trying to put across that I knew I was saying something people might be offended by but I was trying to be friendly about it. Obviously in vain this time. Suddenly I'm "extraordinarily arrogant". I'd be lying if I said I regularly contribute to online forums, I don't, partly for these reasons. I'm well aware this sounds snobbish, but I don't get the reasoning that says I should contribute even though I find it very frustrating and time-wasting, otherwise I'm an arrogant person.

Paulus emailed me asking me if I wanted to chip in on the discussion, as we've talked a lot about this sort of stuff off-line, and he knows I'm a little more patient and precise with the written word than he is, so he obviously thought I could contribute.

> May we look forward to Paulus confirming that he agrees with what you say or shall we just take it for granted?

Take for granted that one person completely agrees with another because they're friends? Not sure about your concept of friendship, but mine far from includes complete agreement! ;-)

> If we are to accept that words are 'alive' should we not also accept that their meanings may no longer be the same as they once were? Do you want us to accept the word 'sacred' in its original sense as defined by Walter Skeat?

Both. I find a lot of strength in holding differing meanings at once, but the facility seems to fall apart quite quickly when pitched into public debate. I'm a big fan of Devil's Advocate, but at the same time I find much value is quickly lost when we can't mutually hold on to more than one perspective at a time. I find the above couple of questions as silly as "So you once lived with your parents and now you live somewhere else? Which one are we supposed to accept?" It's actually one of the easier pairs of perspectives to maintain side-by-side!

Referring to etymology, I think there's huge value in researching the origins of words, as well as their evolution and their current uses. I think James Hillman's on the right track when he sees words as persons, each with their own biography, and we need to understand all aspects of this life to get a proper perspective on the word.

>Were man to live co-eval with the sun,
>The Patriarch-pupil would be learning still.

Got me on this, no idea where it's from.

I should add, I realise it was possibly a mistake to jump into the discussion with a declaration that I don't usually do online forums. Probably came across in entirely the wrong way, and might have skewed the attitude of some people's responses - apologies there.

That said, avoiding online discussions because dealing with misunderstanding, pedantry and such like take up too much time for it to be worthwhile is an attitude that is generally understood among my friends, even if they themselves don't agree with it and spend loads of time online. It's not seen as some form of snobbery, just a valid, if debatable opinion.

Plus, in my experience of participating in discussion lists, I've personally always cut newbies a bit of slack as a rule, accepting that they're diving in to a flow they've not so far been part of. Obviously some people are a bit pricklier. I can't account for that, just put my hands up and say, "OK, that wasn't the best intro."