FW: Same sound, opposite meaning

[Robert Fitzke]

The problem is that "in sloppyXXXXXX common present use it refers to oral
language only, explicitly opposed to written." is not true. Dictionaries
give both meanings and I regularly see the word used both ways and in
contexts in which one can only guess which meaning is intended. The problem
is further compounded, of course, because one doesn't know how the writer
views the word because the writer doesn't make his/her usage clear via
footnotes or explanatory material such as Mark Mandel provides. Whenever I
see the word verbal used in an ambiguous context I think of Shaw's comment,
"The greatest problem of communication is the illusion that it has been
accomplished."

Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark A Mandel <mam at THEWORLD.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Same sound, opposite meaning


> On Wed, 8 May 2002, Robert Fitzke wrote:
>
> #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.
>
> 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. This is
> a case of multiple levels of specificity, like "cow" meaning '(mature)
> member of the genus Bos' versus 'female mature member of ...'. "Verbal"
> would resemble the "same sound, opposite meaning" pattern if it were
> sometimes used to mean 'oral, not written' and sometimes to mean
> 'written, not oral'.  But it isn't.
>
> -- Mark A. Mandel
>