Quote:
Originally posted by Maelakin:
While the semantics ring true, the application fails. When someone from another culture calls an America a Yankee, they are using a slang term. Slang terms only have a common definition in the region they were created. When speaking grammatically correct, an American would be an American. Even when a person in the United States refers to someone living North of the Mason Dixon line as a Yankee, they are still using a slang term.
In your reference to China, a Mongolian living in a region occupied by China would be Chinese. The descriptor “Chinese” when used grammatically correct refers to anyone living within Chinese borders. The Mongolians would at this time be nothing but a sub-set of the Chinese.
Continuing on to your multi-denominational congregation, if you are all part of the Catholic Church, based upon the universal definition you provided, then the various other denominations are but a sub-set of Catholicism. If this case, the descriptor you were looking to use would indeed be Catholic, not Christian. If in fact Catholic is universal and the Roman Catholics are a sub-set of the Catholic church, the rest of the world would have no problem being able to see this.
The above alleviates the confusion you are trying to avoid. You said yourself; you are arguing the language, not the religion. Language upholds the statement that Mormons are Christian. If you insist they are not, then you are arguing a religious standpoint and aren’t arguing use of language at all.
|
Slang? What is slang? Slang is language. Language of the people. Howver, that is moot. It is a recognised word of the English language:
Yan·kee
Pronunciation: 'ya[ng]-kE
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1758
1 a : a native or inhabitant of New England b : a native or inhabitant of the northern U.S.
2 : a native or inhabitant of the U.S.
1758? That's a long time for a word to be slang.... A dictionary definition proves it isn't slang... *looks* nope.. no "colloq." there.
As to "Chinese" again, you are totally ignoring the plight of Tibetans and Mongolians in your broad brushstroke. Sure in one definition, "Chinese" can refer to citicens of China. However, there are Chinese not living in China. It is also a racial term. Han Chinese, or ethnic Chinese are the dominant race of "the Middle kingdom". To call a tibetan or mongolian "Chinese" is incorrect, considering half of Mongolia is INDEPENDENT. A citizen of independant outer Mongolian.. a resident of Ulan Bator, is Mongolian, not Chinese.
With the English/Welsh difference, the case is similar. You would be lumping the conquered in with the conqueror. Quite offensive.
My point is, people within the noun are most able to describe what the noun is. What their shared characteristics are.
As for "catholic" it has come to pass that Roman Catholics simply call themselves "catholic" . In Spainish, English, Italian all. Christiano is a different word to Catholica.
Catholics call themselves that. They're not all about to call themselves "Romans" are they?
So we use a word that can include "Catholics" but exclude those who disagree with our unity. "Christian".
Bear in mind.. and this is important. NOT ALL CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIAN.
There are many who are "Cultural Catholics". I was speaking to a Spainish woman yesterday who when I asked her if she was Christiano, she shook her head and said "Catholica". There are Catholics with divergent practices to mainstream Christianity.
That said, there are Catholics who are Christian, and the Catholic church is a Christian Church. I'm simply pointing out, that Catholic, and Christian, may sometimes be inclusive and may at times be preclusive.
You can be a Catholic Christian.
You can be Christian and not Catholic
You can be Catholic and not Christian.
[ 11-12-2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]