View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

Re: Meanings and associations are different. (m)
"English speakers can use it in that way without any direct reference to the particular Cassandra who lived in ancient Troy"That doesn't make sense to me, sorry. Without the mythological Cassandra, there wouldn't be a term such as "Cassandra-like", or the use of the name as a reference to prophetic behaviour. The fact that the dictionary has included the reference to Cassandra as a "definition" doesn't change the fact that this "definition" is actually a reference.

ChrisellAll we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. - J.R.R. Tolkien.

vote up1vote down

Replies

The myth is where the meaning comes from, but once it becomes a word in the general language so that people can understand what you mean by it even if they don't know the original myth, then it is more than just a "reference". Without the historical Mr. Boycott, there wouldn't be a word "boycott" in the dictionary, but that doesn't make "boycott" just a reference to his original story; almost no one who uses the word knows who he was any more. But the main point I was trying to make is not about exactly how Cassandra should be presented in the dictionary. It's that it is misleading to use the word "meaning" when referring to a name's etymological origin.
vote up1vote down
Not really... since most names don't have an actual dictionary definition, and those that do are derived from actual words or, like Cassandra, are such common allusions/references that they have come to mean what that person was. Names' "meanings" come from their base language, etc, etc, and what the names signified back when they *did* have a "dictionary definition".Umm... sorry to butt into this argument. :S~♥Eirena♥~Ruling the world isn't practical.
vote up1vote down