Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> wouter van ooijen wrote:
>
>   
>>> professional: From <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professional>
>>>
>>>   Noun
>>>   professional (plural professionals)
>>>    1. A person who belongs to a profession
>>>    2. A person who earns his living from a specified activity"
>>>       
>> 1. is circular end hence (IMO) meaningless, unless "profession" has a
>> more interesting definion. 
>>     
>
> IMO it's not circular. It would be if the definition of "profession"
> referred to "professional" -- but it doesn't (in that dictionary); that's
> why I added it to my post. Where is the circle?
>
> BTW, such references are quite common in dictionaries. AIUI this is not
> because they don't have anything better to write, but because when two
> words are very similar this doesn't necessarily mean that their meanings
> are in the same way derived from each other as the grammatical forms are.
> So saying that this is so does provide information, in that it could not be
> so (and is not in several cases).
>
>   
>> I agree with 2., but many other people (maybe even the majority) seem to
>> disagree.
>>     
>
> Well, yes, maybe (if the few posters on this thread can classify as a
> majority :). But then there are other dictionaries. I just wonder why (or
> how, with a certain level of expertise :) discussing the meaning of a term
> is possible without even consulting a single dictionary, let alone several.
> To me, that seems to be the starting point. At the very least the
> discussion can then focus on the differences.
>
> Gerhard
>
>   
Dictionaries reflect what the users believe a word means. They aren't 
the *source* of meaning, but theoretically a reflection of what the 
majority believe.
Over time the meaning of a word can change. Just adding my 2 kilos of 
fat to the fire ;->
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist