Re: 5.2L a classic?

From: droo (03dakotaCC4.7_4x4@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 19:19:31 EDT


On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:49:08 -0400, Bob J <bobsoldbikes@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> ...and this is what leads to every POS 4-door clunker
> on ebay being listed by as a "CLASSIC!!!!!". No
> offense, but not everything is a classic. And a
> dictionary definition is useless in this sense (Do you
> really think people who write dictionaries care about
> cars, for the most part?).
>
> Hell, for that matter, here are two parts of the
> definition of 'classic' from Webster's New College
> Dictionary-
>
> Of or having a style that is balanced, formal,
> objective, restrained, regular, simple.
>
> As pertaining to cars: an automobile of the period
> 1925-1942.
>
> Either way, that still says it's wrong to call a '73
> Comet a 'classic'.
>
>
> Now, just because a car isn't a 'classic' doesn't mean
> you can't like it. My '68 Chrysler Town & Country is
> never going to be a classic. And quite frankly, I
> don't care!
>

Dictionary publishers don't make up word definitions. The base them on
current usage. How they are used in various texts. Obviously for a
definition to be entered it has to have certain criteria. They aren't
going to enter a definition for a word if it's only be used in that manner
once.

-- 
-Droo

http://www.grandroyal.org/dakota



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 12:50:23 EDT