FW: Same sound, opposite meaning

[Mark A Mandel]

On Thu, 9 May 2002, James A. Landau wrote:

#In a message dated 05/08/2002 10:38:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
#mam at THEWORLD.COM writes:

        [Robert Fitzke]
#>  #One that is often used by sportswriters is "verbal". It means both written
#>  #and oral. It is often used to describe a recruit's commitment where the
#>  #difference between a written commitment and an oral commitment is
#critical.

        [Mark Mandel]
#>  I don't agree. "Verbal" in the strict and original sense and my usage
#>  includes written and oral language; in sloppyXXXXXX common present use
#>  it refers to oral language only, explicitly opposed to written.

        [Jim Landau]
#New Jersey not only has some of the highest auto insurance rates in the US,
#it also has some of the most impenetrable legal jargon attached to the
#insurance paperwork.
        [...]

#>From the explanation supplied by my insurance company rather than by the
#state:
#"The 'Verbal Threshold' option uses words, rather than a dollar amount of
#medical bills, to describe when a suit may be filed.  If you select this
#limitation, then you will not be able to sue unless the injury is:
#   death
#   dismemberment
        [...]

This doesn't counter my point. The burden of "verbal" in this term is
that the criterion for actionability is defined by a description in
words rather than in monetary value. The words are written here, but
this use of "verbal" doesn't specify that at all. This is the more
conservative (harrumph: correct!) sense of the word, not distinguishing
one channel (writing, speech, Morse code, ....) from another.

-- Mark A. Mandel