quote:

For some time, I have been pondering on your use of "dogmatic" to describe my(?) comments.

That was, as I thought I made clear, in a comment I tried to make (but it either failed or was deleted) on the blog Proofreader linked to. According to one on-line dictionary dogmatic means "so sure that your beliefs and ideas are right that you expect other people to accept them".

I know a few people like that. I had only thought dogmatic meant to be sure in your beliefs and ideas - not that you expect others to accept them. That is arrogance.

quote:

"so sure that your beliefs and ideas are right that you expect other people to accept them"

... and so, supporting arguments would be totally unnecessary! Dogmatic belief is diametrically opposed to a reasoned-out position.

quote:

I know a few people like that.

... who doesn't? The world is full of dogmatic belief.

quote:

Originally posted by WeeWilly:
Dogmatic belief is diametrically opposed to a reasoned-out position.

Yet dogmatists will go to great lengths to establish an apologia for their beliefs, but base it on false or unprovable premises.

As the bumper sticker says, "My Karma ran over my dogma."

quote:

Yet dogmatists will go to great lengths to establish an apologia for their beliefs, but base it on false or unprovable premises.

... and so, in any given case it behooves one to examine whether this is what is actually at work! And the obvious way to do that would be to consider whether the premises are unreasonable (or false, unprovable or unlikely).

BTW, I love your "dogma" and "karma" quote!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WeeWilly,

When my bitch had her litter, did she immediately turn into a........Oh ferget it.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Howell:
When my bitch had her litter, did she immediately turn into a........Oh ferget it.

A mother?

http://www.writing.wikinut.com...t-the-Same/1c4q0-bs/

Here are my problems with the wikinut article.

quote:

Merriam-Webster defines utilize as, “to make use of; turn to practical use or account.” So how is this different from use? In a nutshell, to utilize something is to give it a use it may not have originally had. For example:

Hold on... They quoted a dictionary definition and then in the next sentence claimed that the definition was something different. Where did this new definition come from?

quote:

Yes, you can utilize the conference room for your holiday party.
• We utilize Excel for our database instead of Access.
• Our company utilizes many common tools to come up with new innovations.

These are assertions about how to use the word. Where is the evidence?

quote:

How to Choose Between "Use" and "Utilize"
Basically, the choice between use and utilize depends on how the item you are referring to is normally employed. For example:

• You use a pen to write, but can utilize it as a weapon.
• You use a dining table for eating, but can utilize it as work space.
• You use a car for driving, but you and your hot date can utilize it for…

More assertions about how and how not to use the word. What if I disagree with these judgments? Even if I agree, how do I know that everyone I talk to will understand this difference? That is, is this difference really part of English or is it just my idiosyncrasy? Where is this coming from? Is there a usage manual that talks about this? Is there a dictionary that gives this definition?

quote:

As the opening quote implies, when you use utilize when you really mean use, you’re employing utilize in a way it’s not intended for (incorrectly applying its own definition). And, if you’re ever in doubt about choosing between the two, just use use and you won’t be guilty of misuse.

Here the writer is basically saying "use the word the same way I do."

quote:

turn to practical use

The careful use of "turn to" in that Merriam-Webster definition of "utilize" suggests the notion of "a use not intended". You hardly turn a steering-wheel to the practical use of steering, but you might "Utilize the steering wheel as a weapon to bludgeon someone to death!"

It does seem to me that I don't use "utilize" and "use" as synonyms. It is just hard to articulate when I use one versus the other.

Kalleh: Quite so, and that is what Goofy and I have been hammering away at, even continuing this discussion to lengthy PM'ing on the matter, since all others have apparently lost interest - small blame on them! Of course, this strikes at the raison d'etre of a forum on words, doesn't it?

To me it boils down to the all-to-common overcomplication of simple words. "Ize" isn't necessary in most situations, and never, as far as I know, where a simpler word suffices. (Or is that sufficizes?" No, it's "sufficifies, isn't it?)

Oh, no, WeeWilly and goofy, I haven't lost interest at all. I've been reading, but haven't had anything too substantial to contribute. As Cicero said, "Silence is one of the great arts of conversation."

Goofy and I have continued this off-line, but if there is interest, I shall here post my last offering to Goofy (just made), noting that he has not yet had any opportunity to respond. We are getting closer to understanding these words and, more importantly, their usage.

quote:

If "utilize" is correct, how do you know it is correct? Because it agrees with wikinut's definition (says you). Where does wikinut's definition come from?

As I see it, Wikinut's definition, and uses for "utilize" come from - or at least, agree with - the M-W definition, in particular the notion of "turning to practical account", etc. By the way, why do you qualify your remark with “(says you)” … as if I have made some sort of [incorrect] interpretation of WikiNut’s examples? Do you think I have?

Anyway, as I mentioned before, it is not only WikiNut that has this view of “utilize”, for it is all over the internet. Again, as I did at the very beginning of the discussion on these two words, I went Googling "use" vs "utilize" to come up with other sites on the topic. For example:Grammar Party and Difference Between. I think the basic points to take from all these discussions about these verbs are as follows:

• “utilize” means “to turn a thing to practical account, particularly one other than the normal function of the thing”;
• “use” means “to deploy a thing to accomplish a purpose or to achieve a result”;
• “use” can pretty-well always serve as substitute for “utilize”;
• “utilize” cannot always be correctly used as a substitute for “use”; and
• “utilize” is often incorrectly offered as a substitute for “use” only to be pretentious or to sound scholarly.

…you’ll notice that points 3 and 4 follow from the the first two points (viz, the definitions). Many of the websites explicitly offer point 5 as an opinion about using “utilize”. However, as always, one is free to choose one’s diction … and indeed, to commit whatever atrocities of language one wants!

So, it is points 3 and 5 that I lean on for preferring the sentence “The steering wheel having come off, he managed to use a wrench to steer the truck.”, although I concede that the following is valid and relatively unpretentious: “The steering wheel having come off, he managed to utilize a wrench to steer the truck.”.


... I also added to Goofy the remark that I would (and did) offer similar reasoning about the usage of "home" and "house", but that I would find less independent backing for it, and far more controversy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WeeWilly,

All I want is some evidence. Why did the lexicographers at the OED and M-W not include "particularly one other than the normal function of the thing” in their definitions? Maybe because they had no evidence?

This is a copy of my PM posting to Goofy's response that was longer than what he offers here

There is nothing that you would accept as evidence beyond (a) the notion of "turning to" in the definition offered by Merriam Webster - to wit, "turning to a practical use or account" combined with (b) the general usage of the suffix "ize", combined with "utilis" (Latin for "useful"). Among the meanings for "-ize" are "cause to be or conform to or resemble"; "cause to be formed into", and "treat like". Thus, "utilize" means "to treat like something useful", or "to resemble, or to form into, something useful", or simply [my] "to treat like a tool".

So "utilize" seems to contain some sense of turning into something that can be plied as a tool. The point is that this is fairly cogent evidence (for me, at least) that some sort of [ad hoc?] "transformation into usefulness" seems to apply for any object's being "utilized". This notion hardly seems germane to a fork's being used as a fork, or to a steering-wheel's being used as a steering-wheel ... and herein lies the niggling sense that "utilizing" a thing contains some measure of plying in a way "that is not expected", or "for which it was not intended" - to wit, my fanciful "transformation into usefulness". Whew!

To summarize, no-one is arguing that there are any great differences between "use" and "utilize", for they are quite obviously close synonyms. But I am suggesting that "utilizing" a thing obliges it "to undergo at least a minimal transformation into something useful", or, simply, "to be used in a way not intended".

Would this be a good question for Quinion?

Sure, go ahead and utilitate him.

I'd suggest either WeeWilly or goofy contact him. They are the ones who have the most knowledge and evidence with these two words.

Who is Paragon Quinion?

Actually, for me, this question is laid to rest, for the arguments and usage examples seem to me to be clear and in harmony. My previous posting of the 5 points about using these two words summarizes my findings on the "correct" way (IMHO, to be sure) to use these two words. Goofy's demands for "evidence", with his questioning of it, is an entirely separate issue. To steal from Nero Wolfe, "No indeed. I am telling you what is, not what I can prove!"

quote:

Originally posted by WeeWilly:
Goofy's demands for "evidence", with his questioning of it, is an entirely separate issue.

Of course it isn't. You're making a claim, and I'm asking for evidence. That's completely unseparate.

Whoops, Goofy, you apparently overlooked my introductory remark:

quote:

Actually, for me, this question is laid to rest

...for, it is only in this context that I assert "Goofy's demands for 'evidence', with his questioning of it, is an entirely separate issue."

quote:

Who is Paragon Quinion?

I don't know about 'Paragon', but Michael Quinion's personal page is here.

Thanks, Arnie. Looks like an interesting site.

It is a wonderful site, and I find Quinion charming and approachable. If you were to ask him, he'd respond.