Comment by defrost
15 hours ago
> instead of accepting that there are multiple usages
Yeah, maybe slow your roll and think about that, along with everything else you've projected.
Clearly I accepted there are multiple usages, I specifically mentioned multiple definitions above.
> Clearly I accepted there are multiple usages, I specifically mentioned multiple definitions above.
You mentioned it in a way that makes #2 sound irrelevant because it's not the "original and primary definition" and diminished it with "recent times".
This is what people are taking issue with.
You're not actually accepting that definition as a proper definition. You're treating it like a minor offshoot.
And I have no idea why you think they're projecting.
I accepted it as a secondary definition (because, as numbered, it is a secondary definition) that also happens to support the primary definition;
I suspect the two commenters are reading more into my comments than was intended.