Re: Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> Ah, but there is no sharp split between the literal and figurative 
>> definitions of "overshadow", the way that there is with "sacred"
>
> Hm, I would've thought the "sharp split" between *literal* and 
> *figurative* would be enough for you.

Um, if it were there, sure.  That is, if it were sharp, here.

> I don't think we're confused about the definitions, we're just confusing 
> the issue by declaring what Palin must've meant by the word even though 
> the context declares otherwise.

Actually, I'm not really all that concerned with what Palin *meant* by the 
term.  My point is that language is never spoken in a vacuum, and words 
have meanings that resonate beyond any one single intention.  When you're 
positioning yourself as the potential representative of a nation of 
hundreds of millions, this is no small point.  Buttressing the tendency of 
many Americans to have a hallowed, quasi-religious view of their founding 
documents and their historical artefacts etc. is a big, big problem.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot