(Jürgen R.) wrote in message
...(to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski):
On 18 Jul 2004 21:29:21 -0700, (Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski) wrote:
(snipped)
My point was to treat words with a due care, to make a clear distinction
between the two words which unfortunately are confused in a sloppy way:
patriotism and nationalism.

Does Wlodzimierz Holsztynski consider himself qualified to work on the
Oxford English Dictionary? I consider the Oxford English Dictionary to
be a far greater authority than Wlodzimierz Holsztynski on the meanings
of words in English.

You have redefined the common meaning of the word 'patriotism' to suit
your purpose. I don't think that makes much sense. ...

But 'redefin(ing) the common meaning' of words 'to suit (one's) purpose'
is a favourite tactic of propagandists.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski may prefer to define words in order to suit himself,
but those definitions seem not useful when most people do not share them.

Writers should keep in mind that the same word may have different meanings
when used in different historical contexts.

"The term 'democracy' has fatally misleading associations, and it is not easy
always to remember that the language used by contemporaries about political
parties is vitiated by a constant source of error. The old names, Whig and
Tory, oligarch and democrat, which stand for the aims of parties in one
generation go on being used in the next, when the lines of cleavage have
really shifted and parties are divided on quite other issues. A democrat
was a revolutionary under Peisistratus, a radical under Cleisthenes, and
in the time of Pericles a conservative."
--Francis Cornford (Thucydides Mythistoricus, p. 10)

--Nick