Re: Re[6]: [tied] Anatolian

--- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> >>> The use of 'nation' to refer to a people is
> >>> obsolescent in popular usage; [...]
>
> > GK: Depends on the "people" using the term
> (:=))
> > They don't like the broader use of the term at the
> > U.N. because it smacks of "the right of nations to
> > self-determination" which is anathema to these
> > gentlemen. They don't like it in many other
> quarters.
> > I like it. I use it all the time, in proper
> context.
> > So do my students.
>
> But that is clearly not popular usage in the usual
> sense.

****GK: I really don't know what you mean by "popular
usage". The word is ambiguous. Your sense
(nation=state) is sense n.3 in my Webster's dictionary
("the body of inhabitants of a country united under a
single independent government; a state.") Glen's
Indian example is n.5 there. And n.1 is "a people
connected by ssupposed ties of blood generally
manifested by community of language, religion,
customs, etc." I'll grant that n.3 now predominates in
the mass media, but that is just media usage, not
popular usage.*****

>
> > I'm certain the usage will survive me and others
> like me.
>
> I agree that it will survive as a semi-technical
> usage. The
> nation/state distinction is very useful, and it
> would be
> very difficult to do without the term in many
> historical
> contexts. But that sense is so far gone from
> popular usage
> that it didn't occur to me

****GK: I've used the word in Canada, in the U.S., in
Europe, in the former Soviet
Union... There was never any trouble in being
understod as I wished to be. Well, except in Toronto,
where certain circles gave me dirty looks when I spoke
of the "nation quebecoise"...*****

when I first read Gregorz

> post,
> even though I'm perfectly familiar with it and have
> used it
> myself.

*****GK: OK. by me. Let's leave it at that*****

>
> Brian
>
>
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com