<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Essential Role of Language</title>
	<atom:link href="http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/</link>
	<description>Catholic News, Catholic Articles, Catholic Apologetics, Catholic Content, Catholic Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:46:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: goral</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/comment-page-1/#comment-43348</link>
		<dc:creator>goral</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/19/122743/#comment-43348</guid>
		<description>Mtr. Shaw / don&#039;t you be dissin&#039; us out dere in the blogosfere &quot; - /</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mtr. Shaw / don&#8217;t you be dissin&#8217; us out dere in the blogosfere &#8221; &#8211; /</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noelfitz</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/comment-page-1/#comment-43341</link>
		<dc:creator>noelfitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/19/122743/#comment-43341</guid>
		<description>I wonder are old dictionaries the best.  If so would one like to use that of Dr Johnson?  He had no time for namby-pamby political correctness.

His views are interesting.

Americans “are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.&quot; 

Ireland is  “Worth seeing, but not worth going to see.” 

The finest sight a Scottish person can see is the high road leading to England.

However he did admit that   &quot;The Irish are a fair people; they never speak well of one another.&quot; 

Some of his better definitions are given in http://www.samueljohnson.com/definitions.html.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder are old dictionaries the best.  If so would one like to use that of Dr Johnson?  He had no time for namby-pamby political correctness.</p>
<p>His views are interesting.</p>
<p>Americans “are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging.&#8221; </p>
<p>Ireland is  “Worth seeing, but not worth going to see.” </p>
<p>The finest sight a Scottish person can see is the high road leading to England.</p>
<p>However he did admit that   &#8220;The Irish are a fair people; they never speak well of one another.&#8221; </p>
<p>Some of his better definitions are given in <a href="http://www.samueljohnson.com/definitions.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.samueljohnson.com/definitions.html</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christi Derr</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/comment-page-1/#comment-43331</link>
		<dc:creator>Christi Derr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/19/122743/#comment-43331</guid>
		<description>Thank you Mr. Shaw! I love discussions of language!

My pet peeve you ask?  The &quot;non sexist&quot; language crowd misusing the word person!  The whole philosophical aspect of the word is missing (as in One God three persons, and angels are persons) and it has become a clumsly and incorrect way of replacing &quot;man.&quot;  Man was, incidently, was a neutral noun in old english, so changing it was completely unneccessary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Mr. Shaw! I love discussions of language!</p>
<p>My pet peeve you ask?  The &#8220;non sexist&#8221; language crowd misusing the word person!  The whole philosophical aspect of the word is missing (as in One God three persons, and angels are persons) and it has become a clumsly and incorrect way of replacing &#8220;man.&#8221;  Man was, incidently, was a neutral noun in old english, so changing it was completely unneccessary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Warren Jewell</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/comment-page-1/#comment-43329</link>
		<dc:creator>Warren Jewell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/19/122743/#comment-43329</guid>
		<description>Cookie, you won&#039;t find a &#039;neologism&#039; anywhere in Scripture because the basic, simple, direct and profound meanings of words were respected and honored. It is to this less inane and specious, and more profound and immanent use of words to which Mr. Shaw alludes. And, no dictionary was very practical, given no printing presses. As well, any person of education, such as a studious rabbinical candidate, would have touch with several languages. Correspondingly, for centuries, up to some few years back, seminarians had to give study to Latin (of course), Greek and Hebrew as part of their studies. Members of missionary orders then may additionally study several languages from lands to which they might be sent. 

Plus, even with no real education folks had to develop understanding of their languages as they lived in need of words for effective communication. Part of our own integral Mass readings, in our communal groupings, came from the need of the educated celebrant giving long homilies of explaining what might not yet be understood for unfamiliarity with vocabulary. I imagine that Q&amp;A Bible study frequently followed the Mass.   

Notice in the foreign expressions of modern-language texts that the old language needs less words and has most direct application. Nuances are limited and &#039;euphemism&#039; becomes apparent as the modernist neologism it is.

And, of course, knowledge of just about anything without significant footing (as one can own) in history is as if one would think to know of oceans from where in places they are but three inches deep. And, therefore, &#039;God&#039; is &#039;just a word&#039; - His transcendent concept from more profound understanding (EDUCATION!) has been lost. 

(Let&#039;s not get me started, eh?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cookie, you won&#8217;t find a &#8216;neologism&#8217; anywhere in Scripture because the basic, simple, direct and profound meanings of words were respected and honored. It is to this less inane and specious, and more profound and immanent use of words to which Mr. Shaw alludes. And, no dictionary was very practical, given no printing presses. As well, any person of education, such as a studious rabbinical candidate, would have touch with several languages. Correspondingly, for centuries, up to some few years back, seminarians had to give study to Latin (of course), Greek and Hebrew as part of their studies. Members of missionary orders then may additionally study several languages from lands to which they might be sent. </p>
<p>Plus, even with no real education folks had to develop understanding of their languages as they lived in need of words for effective communication. Part of our own integral Mass readings, in our communal groupings, came from the need of the educated celebrant giving long homilies of explaining what might not yet be understood for unfamiliarity with vocabulary. I imagine that Q&amp;A Bible study frequently followed the Mass.   </p>
<p>Notice in the foreign expressions of modern-language texts that the old language needs less words and has most direct application. Nuances are limited and &#8216;euphemism&#8217; becomes apparent as the modernist neologism it is.</p>
<p>And, of course, knowledge of just about anything without significant footing (as one can own) in history is as if one would think to know of oceans from where in places they are but three inches deep. And, therefore, &#8216;God&#8217; is &#8216;just a word&#8217; &#8211; His transcendent concept from more profound understanding (EDUCATION!) has been lost. </p>
<p>(Let&#8217;s not get me started, eh?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cooky642</title>
		<link>http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/17/122743/comment-page-1/#comment-43325</link>
		<dc:creator>Cooky642</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catholicexchange.com/2009/10/19/122743/#comment-43325</guid>
		<description>No, thank you, Mr. Shaw; I have one of my own.  In mine, the word &quot;gay&quot; is defined as &quot;happy, light-hearted, vital&quot;.  How such a word became attached to  homosexuals is irritating.  While I have seen homosexual people act happy and light-hearted and, even, vital, when you get beneath the surface, they are none of those things.  So, I simply refuse to use the word in its current context.

Or, take another example.  It has become quite unremarkable to hear even very young children (not to mention folks old enough to know better) take God&#039;s Name in vain or use the Name of Our Lord to express frustration and disgust.  I&#039;ve only had one opportunity with one person to express my indignation.  Her response was, &quot;Oh, please!  It&#039;s only a word&quot;.  If it&#039;s &quot;only a word&quot; (like any other word), why couldn&#039;t she say, &quot;Joe damn it&quot;, or &quot;Dan-iel Christ&quot;?  She was quick to inform me of my &quot;puritanical ignorance&quot;, and laughed it off.  But, within weeks, I noticed she dropped both &quot;words&quot; from her vocabulary. 

I&#039;m well aware that a dictionary is not listed in Ephesians 6.  Perhaps, it should be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, thank you, Mr. Shaw; I have one of my own.  In mine, the word &#8220;gay&#8221; is defined as &#8220;happy, light-hearted, vital&#8221;.  How such a word became attached to  homosexuals is irritating.  While I have seen homosexual people act happy and light-hearted and, even, vital, when you get beneath the surface, they are none of those things.  So, I simply refuse to use the word in its current context.</p>
<p>Or, take another example.  It has become quite unremarkable to hear even very young children (not to mention folks old enough to know better) take God&#8217;s Name in vain or use the Name of Our Lord to express frustration and disgust.  I&#8217;ve only had one opportunity with one person to express my indignation.  Her response was, &#8220;Oh, please!  It&#8217;s only a word&#8221;.  If it&#8217;s &#8220;only a word&#8221; (like any other word), why couldn&#8217;t she say, &#8220;Joe damn it&#8221;, or &#8220;Dan-iel Christ&#8221;?  She was quick to inform me of my &#8220;puritanical ignorance&#8221;, and laughed it off.  But, within weeks, I noticed she dropped both &#8220;words&#8221; from her vocabulary. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m well aware that a dictionary is not listed in Ephesians 6.  Perhaps, it should be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

