Do you like the way the new nickel looks?

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 14 2006, 05:24 PM']really?
[right][snapback]856162[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No--I'm completely joking. Somehow my humor doesn't transfer well to the Internet.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Jan 15 2006, 11:36 AM']No--I'm completely joking.  Somehow my humor doesn't transfer well to the Internet.
[right][snapback]856678[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


that's a relief. :

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 13 2006, 03:29 AM']While I would possibly agree that if we're talking about the technicalities of taxonomy this would be a fair claim, I think the vernacular usage permits, and arguably prefers the use of 'buffalo' over 'bison'.
Said creatures were described as buffalo long before anyone decided to use the term bison in their regard, and I might base my argument partly on this fact. And while I don't have any statistics at hand, I might also argue that this is simply the more common term and thus the more appropriate for common use.

You will find that I resent such things as strict grammar and linguistic formalism. My view is that language is meaningless apart from the concrete and living anthropological consciousness in which it subsists. I like to call this the philological context. So from my view the vernacular sense within a given philological context trumps any extrinsic semantic rules derived from an artificial and static taxonomic organization.
To put it simply: the fact that people in our context properly understand the referent of the term buffalo, means that it is a correct usage. Similarly I can be correct in using what might be considered 'bad grammar' according to the latest textbook. As the semantic trends and prevailing syntactical structures change and adapt, which is proper to a philological context, the books ought obviously to change. But they have never been correct in the first place, nor can they be; or so I would say.

I would like to see a comprehensive argument as to why buffalo ought to be considered a misnomer. As far as I can tell, any such principles of justification would denigrate the better part of our own contemporary language. If you trace back to that maelstrom of ancient languages which met in such an illicit union as to bring forth this bastard tongue, I would dare say that there are an unfortunately vast number of illegitimate locutions polluting the landscape of our particular parlance.

I believe that the attitude you've expressed is symptomatic of a perception of language that I should like to characterise as Euclidean and Newtonian, in contrast with my view that language ought to be evaluated within a paradigm that is relativistic and probabilistic.
[right][snapback]854816[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think we should be friends, L_D.
Buffalo is right, has been for a while. You know, "where the buffalo roam," Buffalo Bill etc. etc. Bison Bill would have been a real loser.


This is the only cool Bison:

[img]http://members.tripod.com/a3cody/images/storyline_bison.gif[/img]

[magnificat]

[quote name='Ernie' date='Jan 13 2006, 06:25 AM']i am a fan of the state quarters though :
[right][snapback]854838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Me too!

Although it's probably not the best use of my money to be collecting all the quarters instead of spending them!!