Re: [tied] Anatolian

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
wrote:

>
> At 9:20:51 PM on Monday, October 24, 2005, george knysh
> wrote:
>
> > ****GK: I really don't know what you mean by "popular
> > usage".
>
> Everyday, man-on-the-street, non-academic, non-technical
> 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.") [...] I'll grant that n.3 now predominates in
> > the mass media, but that is just media usage, not popular
> > usage.*****
>
> In this case (as in many others) media usage is a pretty
> accurate reflection of (what I've seen of) popular usage.
> (I'm assuming that you're using 'media' in the modern
> popular sense! <g>)

Hi Brian and all,

While your assessment of the "man-in-the-street's" understanding of
the word seems accurate, my impression is that almost all those with
a certain minimum interest in history or anthropology are well aware
of the differing meanings of "nation" and can usually determine from
context which one is meant (and perhaps even tend to refrain from
using the "nation=state" meaning in their own discourse) I would not
expect the "nation=people" meaning to cause problems on a linguistics
list.

Ned Smith