It's hard to even know what your claim is now. A standard of correctness does not have to be an absolute. It's a yard-stick. Felicity and appropriacy are other terms used in similar contexts. And if as per @S this all boils down to some pedantic notion regarding the term "correct", it really has been a waste of time. Although either way your argumentum ad populum claim is senseless and you ought to drop it and rephrase your objection in a more coherent manner.

Again, the conventional definition of "correct" is NOT "conventional." — Terrapin Station

The first dictionary definition I found fits the situation I described just fine:

correct
"1. free from error; in accordance with fact or truth".

If your interpretation matches the intended meaning (that being a matter of fact or truth with which you would be in accordance with) then that's an instance of successful communication whereby you would have understood me correctly, not misunderstood me, which would mean an erroneous interpretation.

I shouldn't even have to explain that, as it's obvious. You're not a child, so why are you acting like one?

Can you give us a bit more to chew on? A link even. It's got to be more interesting than what's come before.

And if as per S this all boils down to some pedantic notion regarding the term "correct", it really has been a waste fo time. — Baden

That's all it is, I'm sure.

"1. free from error; in accordance with fact or truth".

If your interpretation matches the intended meaning (a matter if fact or truth with which you would be in accordance with) then that's a successful match and you would have understood me correctly, not misunderstood me, meaning an erroneous interpretation.

I shouldn't even have to explain that, as it's obvious. You're not a child, so why are you acting like one? — S

You're not understanding something I've explained many times:

It's correct that the definition of "correct" above is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."

It's correct that that's a conventional definition.

That doesn't imply that it's correct to define "correct" as "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."

It's a scope issue. The distinction is similar to the bound/unbound distinction.

In the one case, we're making a claim about what happens to be the case re popular usage, re what a dictionary says, etc. "Correct" is bound to those claims qua those claims--that is, what popular usage is, what the dictionary says, etc.

In the other case, it's an attempt to make an unbound claim--"It's not correct to define 'correct' as 'a type of puppy'" is not saying, "That's not what the dictionary says" or "That's not the conventional definition." It's broader than that. The unbound claim has an implication that one SHOULD follow conventions, should follow suit. That it's right to follow conventions. But that's hogwash of course.

If you were simply saying "Defining 'correct' as 'a type of puppy' is not the conventional definition; it's not what the dictionary says," the person you're saying that to can simply say, "So what? I wasn't attempting to relay the dictionary or conventional definition."

You'd still want to say that they're incorrect, though.

Is this the room for an argument?

You're not understanding something I've explained many times:

It's correct that the definition of "correct" above is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."

It's correct that that's a conventional definition.

That doesn't imply that it's correct to define "correct" as "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." — Terrapin Station

Are you insane? I'm not failing to understand your irrelevant points. It is correct per my usage, and per common usage, and per a matching interpretation from you. Any mismatched interpretation is incorrect. That's how the rest of us use the words "correct" and "incorrect" in situations like this, and you haven't provided any sensible reason for refusing to use them likewise. All you've done is express an irrational unwillingness to join in, due to some childish aversion to the notion of conformity, which to you is some sort of bogeyman.

It's a scope issue. The distinction is similar to the bound/unbound distinction.

In the one case, we're making a claim about what happens to be the case re popular usage, re what a dictionary says, etc. "Correct" is bound to those claims qua those claims--that is, what popular usage is, what the dictionary says, etc.

In the other case, it's an attempt to make an unbound claim--"It's not correct to define 'correct' as 'a type of puppy'" is not saying, "That's not what the dictionary says" or "That's not the conventional definition."

And in the unbound claim, there's an implication that one SHOULD follow conventions. That it's right to follow conventions. — Terrapin Station

You're completely off track there. This is a simple matter of whether you're willing to use a word, "correct", like the rest of us, in a situation which makes sense, or whether you're going to continue to resist on no reasonable basis, given that your arguments miss the point.

If you've interpreted the above as I meant it, which is also how the words are commonly used in that context, then you've correctly understood me - you've ascertained the correct meaning - and if not, then you haven't - you've made an error.

This is a simple matter of whether you're willing to use a word, "correct", like the rest of us, in a situation which makes sense, or whether you're going to continue to resist on no reasonable basis, given that your arguments miss the point. — S

And if you're not willing, you're incorrect?

And if you're not willing, you're incorrect? — Terrapin Station

Not even that. If you are not willing, you are not saying anything.

Not even that. If you are not willing, you are not saying anything. — unenlightened

:rofl:

And if you're not willing, you're incorrect? — Terrapin Station

In a sense, yes. Like Baden said, we're not dealing in absolutes. So, under the working assumption that willingness in this context indicates correctness, then obviously you would indeed be incorrect if you're not willing.

You're wrong because your position fails, and the collective position of the rest of us works. It is superior. It makes sense. Yours does not.

In a sense, yes. Like Baden said, we're not dealing in absolutes. So, under the working assumption that willingness in this context indicates correctness, then obviously you would indeed be incorrect if you're not willing. — S

But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."

After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention.

No! :lol:

But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." — Terrapin Station

Of course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that.

After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention. — Terrapin Station

Only if they want to understand me!

Jesus H. Christ.

It certainly feels like that with Terrapin Station at times like this! :lol:

If course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell us that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S

Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that?

And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc.

Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that? — Terrapin Station

Yes, but so what? I never at any point said that conventional usage is the only possible standard of correctness. I very clearly said that it is the default standard.

And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and again, so what? Is this the point where you backtrack after all of this apparent disagreement? It wouldn't be the first time you've done that.

Yes, but so what? I never at any point said that conventional usage is the only possible standard of correctness. I very clearly said that it is the default standard. — S

So "correct" has no normative or prescriptive weight in your usage here?

So "correct" has no normative or prescriptive weight in your usage here? — Terrapin Station

What do you mean by that? Why wouldn't it?

And besides, please don't create diversions. It feels as though we are on the verge of finally getting somewhere. All you have to do us come out and clearly and directly address this key point that I've put to you:

I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S

So, do you a) understand that, and b) acknowledge it to be so?

What do you mean by that? Why wouldn't it? — S

Because you keep claiming that you're simply using the term descriptively, so that it simply pegs the consensus usage as such.

Why should someone adhere to the consensus usage when they tell you they're using some odd definition, like "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy'"?

What it means is that the manner in which you use the word "chair" does not correspond to the manner in which English speaking people do. — Magnus Anderson

And norms/conventions are correct because? — Terrapin Station

Where did I say that conventions are correct?
Or that they can be correct?

I merely explained what it means to say that someone is using words incorrectly.

I'm not even going to read your reply, because it is apparently a response to your own digression, which you seem to want to continue. Enough with the red herrings. Answer the key question in bold.

I merely explained what it means to say that someone is using words incorrectly. — Magnus Anderson

What it "means" is that they're not using the word conventionally/a la common usage, right?

pfft

Are you insane? I'm not failing to understand your irrelevant points. It is correct per my usage, and per common usage, and per a matching interpretation from you. Any mismatched interpretation is incorrect. That's how the rest of us use the words "correct" and "incorrect" in situations like this, and you haven't provided any sensible reason for refusing to use them likewise. All you've done is express an irrational unwillingness to join in, due to some childish aversion to the notion of conformity, which to you is some sort of bogeyman. — S

Well said. You made me chuckle (:

Just answer the key question in bold. What's the problem? Stop evading.

I'd be interested if you were to address my last post to you.

What it "means" is that they're not using the word conventionally/a la common usage, right? — Terrapin Station

No need for scare quotes. That's exactly what it means to say that someone is using some word incorrectly -- it means that the person is not using the word the way most people do.

No need for scare quotes. — Magnus Anderson

There's a need because I don't consider that meaning.

Okay, so then the convention is correct, no, and differing from the convention is incorrect?

You began a digression before answering the most important point of disagreement between us. I want you to give a clear and direct answer to that key question before I humour you any further on secondary points which you'd rather pursue instead.