Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
I see I need to be more specific.

You claim to offer up definitions of words as they were defined and understood circa 1791.

To support your claim, I request that you provide the definitions of the words from a verifiable dictionary entry or another such authoritative linguistic source. I don't want a long discussion, or someone else's opinion, I want a dictionary definition. After all, you assert that "words mean things", and you further make claims as to what those words meant circa 1791. So, let's see some proof.

89 posted on 12/13/2007 12:55:29 PM PST by aragorn (Tag line? What tag line?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: aragorn
"I see I need to be more specific."

Perhaps. But I see no such need.

You asked for my source to show that this was not some "proof by assertion". That I wasn't "making it up". Well, I gave that to you. Now you say that's not definitive enough? Not exactly what you were looking for?

Too bad. I can't please everyone. Certainly if you can disprove my source or if you can find something contrary to my assertion, I'd love to see it.

That would, however, require YOU to actually do some research, rather than sending me to do it.

92 posted on 12/13/2007 1:17:06 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson