Just a question: is it possible, to 'evolve' an oxymoron?

[Gottservant]

So, yes, it is [possible to] evolve an oxymoron.

You left out the words "possible to", is it possible you did this because "Evolution" fails to show how (oxymorons could evolve)?

You are basically saying "an oxymoron evolves, when it means the opposite"? Opposite in what way? In a way that is no longer an oxymoron? If a cat dog becomes a dog cat?

 

[Freodin]

You left out the words "possible to", is it possible you did this because "Evolution" fails to show how (oxymorons could evolve)?

No, I did that because sometimes there is a disconnect between the brain forming the thought and the fingers hitting the keys.

You are basically saying "an oxymoron evolves, when it means the opposite"? Opposite in what way? In a way that is no longer an oxymoron? If a cat dog becomes a dog cat?

No, I am not basically saying that. That's your problem... you can't fathom the true content of a thought, and thus you only regurgitate the thoughts in your own brain that a word you read or hear evokes.

I explained what an oxymoron is in my last post. It is a linguistic concept. One that combines two expressions into a new one, with the defining characteristic that the two initial terms are opposed or contradicting in meaning.

But you are still trying to connect - even limit - that to biological evolution... the idea of change in the form of living beings and their categorization.

You are wrong in this regard. You are wrong in this regard for years now, and you just cannot stop yourself. You might consider that, when you constantly say things that everyone else tells you are wrong... it is indeed you who are wrong, and not everyone else.

So, a composition of terms "evolves" into an oxymoron, when the meaning of the individual terms change in a way so that their meaning becomes opposed to each other.

 

[Gottservant]

So, a composition of terms "evolves" into an oxymoron, when the meaning of the individual terms change in a way so that their meaning becomes opposed to each other.

So a cat dog that is opposed to being a cat dog, is an Evolution?

I think the problem is, you believe you have a power of interpretation, that is greater than God given understanding can fathom.

It's not wrong to be liberal with an interpretation, if you refrain from calling it artistic. I think the concern is that you think the art of interpretation is its own god, that you couldn't possibly see the connection between one creature and another, without it being therefore "true".

I'm not healthy, if I believe my parents were more apes than they wanted to be; I can't go along with the idea that the madness of being a carnal mixture, is somehow progress.

I refrain at this point, from making the conversation more complicated than it needs to be. I think there needs to be a pattern of restraint, demonstrated by your side of the conversation as well. Show me a tangible way in which you do not "just go" with what Evolution demonstrates, and I will know I am not just having a conversation with a puppet?

 

[Shemjaza]

So a cat dog that is opposed to being a cat dog, is an Evolution?

I think the problem is, you believe you have a power of interpretation, that is greater than God given understanding can fathom.

It's not wrong to be liberal with an interpretation, if you refrain from calling it artistic. I think the concern is that you think the art of interpretation is its own god, that you couldn't possibly see the connection between one creature and another, without it being therefore "true".

I'm not healthy, if I believe my parents were more apes than they wanted to be; I can't go along with the idea that the madness of being a carnal mixture, is somehow progress.

I refrain at this point, from making the conversation more complicated than it needs to be. I think there needs to be a pattern of restraint, demonstrated by your side of the conversation as well. Show me a tangible way in which you do not "just go" with what Evolution demonstrates, and I will know I am not just having a conversation with a puppet?

You aren't making sense here.

Please define what you mean by "evolution" in this context.

 

[Freodin]

So a cat dog that is opposed to being a cat dog, is an Evolution?

What? Please rethink this statement. It doesn't bear any connection to the discussion at hand.

We were talking about oxymorons. A combination of two terms that are opposed in meaning. That is an oxymoron... not an evolution. An evolution is something completely different.

I think the problem is, you believe you have a power of interpretation, that is greater than God given understanding can fathom.

It's not wrong to be liberal with an interpretation, if you refrain from calling it artistic. I think the concern is that you think the art of interpretation is its own god, that you couldn't possibly see the connection between one creature and another, without it being therefore "true".

And again you demonstrate the very problem I mentioned in my last post: you are incapable of listening to others, you are only echoing the thoughts in your own mind.

Creatures? We weren't talking about creatures. We were talking about linguistic constructs, weren't we?

"Bittersweet". That's a word. A word with a certain meaning and connotation. And... it is an oxymoron.
It is not a creature. It is not an evolution.

If you want to talk about oxymorons... stay on topic. If you want to go into another rant about creatures becoming other creatures... say so, and I will stop trying to respond to your initial question.

I'm not healthy, if I believe my parents were more apes than they wanted to be; I can't go along with the idea that the madness of being a carnal mixture, is somehow progress.

I refrain at this point, from making the conversation more complicated than it needs to be. I think there needs to be a pattern of restraint, demonstrated by your side of the conversation as well. Show me a tangible way in which you do not "just go" with what Evolution demonstrates, and I will know I am not just having a conversation with a puppet?

You seem to be, at least marginally, capable of understanding and accepting your limitations. It would be great if you could start acting on this understanding. Not that I have much hope you will.

 

[Gottservant]

You aren't making sense here.

Please define what you mean by "evolution" in this context.

That's what I am saying "it is impossible to make sense, this way"

 

[Gottservant]

"Bittersweet". That's a word.

And how does "bittersweet" evolve? What transition of context can evolution facilitate for the term "bittersweet"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's what I am saying "it is impossible to make sense, this way"

No, you're not making any sense is what he is saying.

And how does "bittersweet" evolve? What transition of context can evolution facilitate for the term "bittersweet"?

Bittersweet comes from the Middle English word bitterswete. Nothing to do with evolution, just language changing as times change.

 

[Gottservant]

And how does "bittersweet" evolve? What transition of context can evolution facilitate for the term "bittersweet"?

Bitter-almost-sweet, little-bitter-more-sweet, bitter-bitter-not-sweet, bitter-resweet?

None of these make sense.

If all these compete, they do not create bitter "and" sweet - but your argument is that Evolution justifies the sub-text long enough, to do exactly that.

Diminishing possibility does not make change more likely.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's what I am saying "it is impossible to make sense, this way"

And you are wrong.

You are capable of understanding and communicating, you just need to focus your points and have clear concepts and definitions.

When you drift from science to linguistics to theology in a single paragraph you will never be able to make a clear point and be understood.

You need to work out what you want to communicate, then work out what terms you want to use and precisely what they mean, then construct your paragraphs to present this information.

 

[Freodin]

And how does "bittersweet" evolve? What transition of context can evolution facilitate for the term "bittersweet"?

You baffle me, Gottservant. I simply do not understand how someone can be mainly eloquent, able to understand the concepts of "meaning" and "conversation"... and then so consistently ignore and miss what others tell them.
I cannot imagine that you do that in your daily life.

I did not say that "bittersweet" is evolved. Here, read it again:

"Bittersweet". That's a word. A word with a certain meaning and connotation. And... it is an oxymoron.

I admit that I cannot think of an example of a composite term changing into an oxymoron. The reason for that is the the original composite term would already have to have a specific meaning, and the term would have to stay in use while the meaning of one of its components changed.
It's not a mechanism that is prevalent in linguistics... but it is not excluded by any means as well. It's possible that terms of that nature exist... and I just can't think of any.

The other mechanism that happens in fact quite often is that the meaning of one specific word changes, and this word is then used to form a new composite, which can be an oxymoron.

An example would be the german colloquial term "saugut" (roughly translates as: sow good).
"Sau" as a prefix or comparison usually denotes "bad", "dirty" or "ugly".
But the meaning has (partially) changed in a way that it now can mean "very" or "extremly". So that a term that in its common meaning says: "bad good" has the meaning of "extremely good".

 

[Larniavc]

There is no reason, but is there resistance?

Resistance can only be gauged, as coming from outside the species?

For example, what is the Devil's perspective? Is he for or against "Evolution"?

There is no resistance to evolution. Anymore than there is resistance to evaporation or crystal formation.

 

[Yttrium]

So a cat dog that is opposed to being a cat dog, is an Evolution?

I think the problem is, you believe you have a power of interpretation, that is greater than God given understanding can fathom.

It's not wrong to be liberal with an interpretation, if you refrain from calling it artistic. I think the concern is that you think the art of interpretation is its own god, that you couldn't possibly see the connection between one creature and another, without it being therefore "true".

I'm not healthy, if I believe my parents were more apes than they wanted to be; I can't go along with the idea that the madness of being a carnal mixture, is somehow progress.

I refrain at this point, from making the conversation more complicated than it needs to be. I think there needs to be a pattern of restraint, demonstrated by your side of the conversation as well. Show me a tangible way in which you do not "just go" with what Evolution demonstrates, and I will know I am not just having a conversation with a puppet?

Your argument is perfectly flawed. You present a monumentally tall crevice of misinformation that circles around itself in an entirely linear fashion. I think none of us have God given understanding, just a glimmer of shadow.