# Good, a revolution of language. (1 Viewer)



## ArcThomas (Jul 30, 2010)

I feel I need to express this: and thus.
  The definition of Good has long sicne been Lax thorough out literature, language and society.
  The definition of good, is nothing short of *Perfection* by all accounts of technicality. To be _good_ is to be *completely* void of negative qualities.

It should almost be said that the word good that we use in our every day speak should be reworded. Or at the very minimum legally declared the new definition of 'Good' is a reference to above par, bellow great, and somewhere between fantasic and wonderful.
   Thus granting the antique word a new title. Something like God - which coincidently shares the same qualities... and then some.. Perhaps something less controversial.


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2010)

Go here, boyo, and all your questions will be answered, all your doubts put to rest.

Welcome to Oxford Dictionaries Online : Oxford Dictionaries Online


----------



## ArcThomas (Jul 30, 2010)

Your ignoringt he purpose. The word good is not used properly. It needs a new Word to takes it's place. It's critical. the bible needs to be read with 100% security.


----------



## WhitakerRStanton (Jul 30, 2010)

~


----------



## alanmt (Jul 30, 2010)

good post


----------



## garza (Jul 31, 2010)

Thank you.

Oh, you mean Thomas.


----------



## T.G. Harrison (Jul 31, 2010)

Lol. ArcThomas is a real-life advocate of Newspeak. ^.^

EDIT - Of note: I disagree.

Language is something which needs to _evolve_, not _re_volve. We have words like "perfection", and phrases such as "completely void of negative qualities" for a reason. Sometimes, after being around for long enough, certain words (especially nouns and adjectives which describe groups of people) develop a pejorative meaning. When this happens, a new word comes into use - or an older one garners a new meaning.

"Good" is similar. From what you say, its original meaning seems to have been diluted by a plethora of synonyms, which have taken on stronger meanings than "good" itself. This happens. It is a natural feature of language. It is evolution. It is how new words are created. It keeps our spoken and written language fresh - and powerful.

SECOND EDIT:

After reviewing Thomas' post, I suddenly have no idea what this thread is actually about... ^.^


----------



## Edgewise (Jul 31, 2010)

It would be much more efficient to keep the vernacular definition of good and come up with another word to describe something unblemished by error.  Unfortunately for professional word inventors, English already has gems like sublime, immaculate, perfect, flawless, etc.

The thread had a point, but I'm still wondering why the point had to be made. 

?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 31, 2010)

alanmt said:


> good post




             :lol:


----------



## ArcThomas (Jul 31, 2010)

If u want the meaning of words to evolve there is no point in writing at all.
  If the meaning of a sentance changes to the message is lost.     If you took every word fro good in the bible and removed the perfection quality it HAS. the bible becomes lax. Same goes fro any subject and word. But my point is Good is terribly miss-used. And I think it needs an official knew title that will perminently preplace the word good in old documents or literature wiht an exception of lyrics.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 31, 2010)

ArcThomas said:


> If u want the meaning of words to evolve there is no point in writing at all.
> If the meaning of a sentance changes to the message is lost.     If you took every word fro good in the bible and removed the perfection quality it HAS. the bible becomes lax. Same goes fro any subject and word. But my point is Good is terribly miss-used. And I think it needs an official knew title that will perminently preplace the word good in old documents or literature wiht an exception of lyrics.



The English versions of the Bible are all translations. If you look at some of the language used in the King James, it's almost unrecognisable to us in the 21st century, so there are ways of making the language more accessible to a contemporary readership while exercising the same sort of parsimony when it comes to identifying meaning and sentence structure. The key here is reading things "in context" and not acontextually. So, if you come across something in Matt 19: 17, where Christ says "why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good." We understand from it that good deeds by human standards fall short and that only God can truly be said to good for He would be the ultimate standard against which we could measure "goodness" and "badness". The word "good" can have a level of flexibility because you can have greater and lesser "good", and a lesser "good" can quite often be regarded as evil in the context of a choice. The problem is more often one of comprehension; not reading things in the proper context and coming to erroneous conclusions.


----------



## ArcThomas (Jul 31, 2010)

First I wanted to bring up the quote from Mathew. But I thought it would be better to bring that in with some discussion. Thank you fro proving my point.
Also the "great and lesser good's" are what brings me to this discussion. there is no lesser good. There is just a greater and a lesser. For neither are Good at all.

Great fro example has no reference to Goodness. Just the opinion of whether or not the speaker enjoys the topic at hand.


----------



## garza (Jul 31, 2010)

Thomas - Open a window and let a breeze clear the air a bit then try that last post again.


----------



## ArcThomas (Jul 31, 2010)

I see no need. The only spelling errors were minor.. which I fixed as much as I care. And if u read the prior post you'd have no need. this si a discussion. U must fallow a set rule of thumb. Don't ignore people. if your responding tot he context of a post.


----------



## garza (Jul 31, 2010)

Just to be sure we are all on the same page, using the same meanings for words, Oxford Concise' first definition for 'good' is '_having the right or desired qualities, satisfactory, adequate_'. (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, ninth edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, p.584col.2)

The word generally translated as 'good' in Matthew 19:17 is αγαθός, which can be transliterated as agathos and is pronounced ag-ath-os'. The English equivalent root definition is generally given as 'benefit'. αγαθός is used 102 times in the New Testament. The New American Standard Bible translates αγαθός as generous (1), good (81), good man (2), good thing (6), good things (6), goodness (1), goods (2), kind (1), kindly (1), kindness (1)

Languages evolve by natural processes which cannot be stopped. Every generation adds words, drops words, shifts the meaning of words. Consider that the AV1611 translation of the Bible, commonly called the 'King James Version', is written in what is called early modern English. As has been pointed out, we are five hundred years away from that and without special study the reader of today has a very difficult time with the language. 

The point is that, to go back to your original post, to quibble over the meaning or use of one word is poiintless, especially such a general-use word as 'good' which can mean almost anything you want it to mean. We have to take the speaker's exact meaning of such a word from the context. If I say to a carpenter who has just banged his thumb with a hammer, 'well, that must feel good', it dosen't mean at all the same as when he tells me he's won the Lotto and I say, 'well, that must feel good'.


----------



## WhitakerRStanton (Jul 31, 2010)

~


----------



## garza (Jul 31, 2010)

When I googled for 'greater good' just to see what would happen, this is one of the sites that came up:

Greater Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life

That one didn't really appeal to me, so I looked at this one:

GreaterGood.org

Which looks to be more my style.

If we shift from 'good' as it applies to the individual and focus instead on the 'greater good' as it applies to the community we find an entirely new set of values, a new paradigm, if you will.

When my son was eight years old he was sitting listening to a conversation I was having with some politician or other and I happened to mention a 'new paradigm' and David spoke up and asked if he could have them.  
'Have what?'  
'The new pair of dimes.'


----------



## RomanticRose (Jul 31, 2010)

If you take away the subjectiveness, the ambiguity, of words, writers will become coders. And when that happens, I'll have to get a real job.

I vote against.

On a more serious note, comes the revolution, are we going to have "Word Usage Police"?  Who is going to determine if John Q. Novelist used a certain word correctly?  Will JQN's word processing program be confiscated?  If he starts writing on paper, will they make him wear boxing gloves?


----------



## Patrick (Jul 31, 2010)

RomanticRose said:


> If you take away the subjectiveness, the ambiguity, of words, writers will become coders. And when that happens, I'll have to get a real job.
> 
> I vote against.
> 
> On a more serious note, comes the revolution, are we going to have "Word Usage Police"?  Who is going to determine if John Q. Novelist used a certain word correctly?  Will JQN's word processing program be confiscated?  If he starts writing on paper, will they make him wear boxing gloves?



The issue here is not really with the word "good" being ambiguous or subjective, it's understanding that words are used in different contexts. Ambiguity is something you intentionally (some people do it unintentionally), create and it's to do with a message.  How can  a word be ambiguous standing alone? It's just a tool to help convey a concept.


----------



## ArcThomas (Jul 31, 2010)

The only reason I took an interest int he topic is because Good is such a generally sued word.
I understadn language and evolution of words just fine.
I'm saying we need to reserve the definition so that text makes sence.
Your entire translation bit proved nothing against me.


----------



## WhitakerRStanton (Jul 31, 2010)

~


----------



## Foxee (Jul 31, 2010)

ArcThomas said:


> Good is such a generally sued word.


Surely there are stories to be written about this one sentence.


> I'm saying we need to reserve the definition so that text makes sence.


I can see a good place to start right here.


----------



## ArcThomas (Jul 31, 2010)

Your too picky about simple spelling errors in a forum thread.  Not to mention you clearly understood both meanings prior to making your post. That si almost an equivalent of spam.

WhitakerRStanton  , he and me are disputing whether or not Good needs a new definition or a word to replace it.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 31, 2010)

ArcThomas said:


> Your too picky about simple spelling errors in a forum thread.  Not to mention you clearly understood both meanings prior to making your post. That si almost an equivalent of spam.
> 
> WhitakerRStanton  , he and me are disputing whether or not Good needs a new definition or a word to replace it.



Definitions are just a guide. Concentrate on the concepts and the context you find them in. That goes for any text. Otherwise you can spend hours of your life going through definitons, arguing, poking holes in them, creating new definitions, arguing about and poking holes in those, etc.


----------



## garza (Jul 31, 2010)

My feeling is that we can all go through life trying to make sense of this thread. 

Thomas - I posted the definitions of both the English and Greek so that we would all, as I said, be on the same page, understanding clearly what we were supposed to be talking about. That post was not against you, but was an effort to anchor the thread so it wouldn't go off the rails as so many threads here do.

As for 'good' being sued, that's an interesting legal concept, bringing a civil action against a word. I presume the venue would be Oxford. Would you sue good for being bad? Perhaps for being too subtly subjective for its own good? Perhaps move for protective confinement, the use of 'good' restricted to those who are sufficiently sensitive to the goodness of good?

You say that because I knew the definitions of the two words ahead of time, the post amounted to spam. This may surprise you, but many of us try to know the meaning of a word before we use it. You should try it.


----------



## Baron (Jul 31, 2010)

garza said:


> My feeling is that we can all go through life trying to make sense of this thread.



I'm really sorry _but_...  I really have to question the mental balance of anyone who would think that a worthy pursuit.


----------



## garza (Jul 31, 2010)

I didn't say it was a worthy pursuit. 

I was just pointing out that among the infinite possibilities in this and in an infinite number of alternate universes, finding the logic in this thread is one cause to which we could devote the remaining days of our existence. 

Hoping for more adventure, however, I've decided that sitting in a corner picking lint out of my belly button would offer more excitement.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 31, 2010)

I propose the word "blupholufphagus" for this purpose.  Then the one version of the Bible can stand intact for all eternity, and I can continue using my own darn language the way I see fit.


----------



## Baron (Jul 31, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> I propose the word "blupholufphagus" for this purpose.  Then the one version of the Bible can stand intact for all eternity, and I can continue using my own darn language the way I see fit.


 
You don't have your own language, you've messed up ours.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jul 31, 2010)

My own dialect of English, then, if you must be so British, then.


----------



## k3ng (Jul 31, 2010)

garza said:


> As for 'good' being sued, that's an interesting legal concept, bringing a civil action against a word. I presume the venue would be Oxford. Would you sue good for being bad? Perhaps for being too subtly subjective for its own good? Perhaps move for protective confinement, the use of 'good' restricted to those who are sufficiently sensitive to the goodness of good?


 
LOL


----------



## William_Goffspeare (Jul 31, 2010)

ArcThomas, if you're truly concerned about the ambiguity of language, why intentionally create ambiguity by refusing to use standard English? Typos on forums aren't a big deal but I don't see the point of going out of your way to do it...

But in response to your original post on this thread, it is true that "good" can have more than one meaning. But generally this word is used in context, which helps people understand what is meant by the word "good".


----------



## T.G. Harrison (Aug 1, 2010)

William is correct on two points. Language, no matter how clear and straightforward its definitions are, is meaningless without context. Context is far more important than semantics. When we read the bible, we know that God is not being described as "better than okay, but somewhere beneath fantastic and wonderful". We know that the "good" being used is a more archaic "good". Context. 

And, indeed, language is also meaningless when it is made deliberately so. ^.^

And to bring up your prior rebuke - 





> If u want the meaning of words to evolve there is no point in writing at all.



Just... no. Perhaps if our target audience is a cumulation of bricks, you would have a point. We write, however, for people, in language they know - language which (as garza said) is the product of many generations of evolution. And besides, it doesn't matter if we WANT the semantics to evolve or not. It happens. Society makes it happen.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 1, 2010)

ArcThomas said:


> Your too picky about simple spelling errors in a forum thread. Not to mention you clearly understood both meanings prior to making your post. That si almost an equivalent of spam.


 
If the powers-that-be want to call my post flaming then perhaps they should first consider the inflammatory nature of the post to which I am responding - but I have had about enough of you mate. This is a writing forum. As writers we are expected to show the world how it's done. You want to act like that all the time, find a forum that caters to nonsense. 

_Or should that be 'for nonsense'?_


----------



## garza (Aug 1, 2010)

Ox - Here's an interesting note I found elsewhere on the 'net.

'While sometimes, he may sound like a stupid, uninformed, ignorant poster, do not be deceived!  Most trolls are highly intelligent people trying to hide behind a mask of stupidity and/or  ignorance!'

I'm not sure that's relevant, but somehow it just seems to fit into the discussion. What do you think?


----------



## Foxee (Aug 1, 2010)

A discussion about a WF member's _writing_ is fair game. A discussion about the _WF member_ isn't appropriate for the public boards.

A distinction to keep in mind going forward.


----------



## garza (Aug 1, 2010)

It's not about anyone in particular, just a note I happened to pick up and this seemed to be as good a place to pin it up as any.


----------



## Patrick (Aug 1, 2010)

garza said:


> It's not about anyone in particular, just a note I happened to pick up and this seemed to be as good a place to pin it up as any.



Said the little boy with his hand in the cookie jar.


----------



## garza (Aug 1, 2010)

Mermaid on the Breakwater - No No. You missaw. My hand is not _in_ the cookie jar, just resting _on_ the lid which I dare not lift. In fact I'm moving my hand now, getting down off the chair, and backing slowly out of the kitchen.

Thomas - A good point to remember is that writers always are the ones who define words. The makers of dictionaries do not make up the definitions. They define words by the way they see them used. As years pass and cultures change, writers often coin new words to fit new ideas, or adapt an old word to fit a new circumstance.

And even then the full definition of a word depends, as has been pointed out, by context. This is why the basic unit of writing is the sentence, not the word. Even when we see a word in isolation that forms a complete thought, there are surrounding circumstances that provide a context that gives meaning to the word. 

When we see 'stop' on a roadside sign at an intersection, the unwritten but clearly understood contextual message is, 'you must bring your vehicle to a complete stop and be certain the way is clear before proceeding'. 

The heart of the writing craft is the ability to put words together in a way that they work together to provide a mutual, supportive, context that informs or entertains or in some way serves the purpose of the writer.

And the purpose of the writer is not always as obvious as it might at first appear to be.


----------

