'He drinks a liquid, falls into a deep sleep and dies'

[thestoat]

Yes, precious. Good word

[Crackpot]

PRECIOUS!

[Sean]

Tut!

Is nothing sacred?

[loCAtek]

LOL Good thing no body said that.


Stoat- but you are using sacred and worthless by degrees. Let's say a wedding ring for example: it represents the sacred tradition of marriage, yes?

What if that marriage is a loveless chore for a weary man, but he has lot of children, that he doesn't want to hurt; the band is still sacred but rather less so. or in a different way.

Say the old biddy leaves him for a traveling brush salesman? The man can take the ring off, it's lost much of its worth and is no longer very sacred.

He goes to sell it at the pawn shop and finds out instead of gold, it's made of cheap brass - virtually worthless. The sanctity was all sham.

All this time it was the same ring but the degree of its sacredness changed.

Things aren't always black and white.

[Sean]

The pawn shop does not judge by 'sacredness'.

You're talking about too different types of value. Sentimental and monetary.

[loCAtek]

Exactly, however an object declared monetarily worthless now, may be held for it's sentimental/sacred value and found to be quite valuable in the future, after it's become a rare antique. Again, a matter of degree, and not black and white.

[Sean]

Not at all. Once again, it's future monetary value has got absolutely nothing to do with it's sentimental value.

Also, as Stoat said, there are varying degrees of 'worth' but 'worthless' is an absolute. An object's value can go up from 'worthless' but once it changes...even by a fraction of a cent it is no longer worthless.

[loCAtek]

That's what I said, Stoat disagreed and said worthless was an absolute (which i didn't claim) ;

The point was: is life sacred or worthless? Granted, there are degrees, so discuss...

But that is like saying "Is that bus yellow or is it fast?" They are different. Something could be sacred AND worthless (maybe you would say that about a blade of grass, having life but not useful as currency - I'm guessing here since I reject the sacredness of stuff) or NOT sacred AND NOT worthless, like a car (capitals for boolean operations).

I don't believe life is sacred (a religious term and thus one I reject) OR worthless. Life is worth a lot (to the individual concerned and their loved ones - life isn't worth mich on a cosmic scale of course).

And Gob is quite right - you cannot have degrees of either. I have never heard anyone say "That relic is 70% sacred". You can have an object that is "almost worthless", but by that very definition it means it is not worthless. These two terms are black and white. They are not like properties such as translucence, that can have degrees. And you could say "Big or small or somewhere in between". But not between two words that are by their very nature absolute and not even antonyms.

[Sean]

I believe that what you meant was that there are degrees on a scale with 'sacred' at one end and 'worthless' at the other. As Stoat rightly pointed out these are both absolutes (and not even comparable) so there cannot be degrees of either.

But as I would like to read your thinking on this can you give me examples of something which is 100% sacred and something that is maybe 50% sacred?

[loCAtek]

100% is an absolute. I don't believe in such black and whites.

[Sean]

If there is a scale of varying degrees one end must be 0% (not sacred at all) and the other must be 100% (completely sacred). I know the black and whites, I'm interested in your thoughts on the shades of grey.

[thestoat]

Stoat disagreed and said worthless was an absolute (which i didn't claim)

I do say that - worthless is an absolute. Here are some definitions for you

1. without practical value or usefulness
2. without merit; good-for-nothing

Note the word without. You might want to look that up too, just to make sure . It is absolute.

And the ring you mentioned is either sacred or not. Depending on your point of view, when you remove it it is either still sacred or no longer sacred. You can't get something that is "a little bit sacred" or "gets a little more sacred every day". It either is or isn't. And as Sean repeats once again, Sacred and Worthless are NOT opposites. As I pointed out in the example you ignored

[thestoat]

By the way, Lo, I don't think Sean, Gob et al were being pedantic with their comments. You really threw me with the "sacred or worthless" question, which was why I asked where I had mentioned "worthless". It simply didn't occur to me you might have been thinking they were opposites. Pedantry would arise where the difference in meaning is negligible - this wasn't.

[loCAtek]

There's degrees to then?


Well stoat, it's worth LESS, not worth LEAST; therefore not an absolute. It's antonym is worthwhile.

So, if it's worthwhile - you may ask by how much?

and if it's worthless - you may by how much?

It depends doesn't it?

[BoSoxGal]

Take it from someone with a Master's in English: you are WRONG.

[thestoat]

Lo, I would be giggling profusely now if I didn't think you are serious? Worth LESS? Really?? That may have been the origin a few hundred years ago, but welcome to the 21st century. The term Awful was first coined by Charles I (may have been II) to mean something great - full of awe. But not now.

So you now believe the opposite of worthless is worthwhile. Does that mean worthwhile and sacred are the same?

[Sean]

Well stoat, it's worth LESS, not worth LEAST; therefore not an absolute. It's antonym is worthwhile.

Wow!

But surely by that way of 'thinking' the antonym of worthless would be worthmore...

[Sean]

That may have been the origin a few hundred years ago, but welcome to the 21st century.

I don't think it ever meant that Stoat...

The word 'less' means 'without' as in worthless, ruthless, blameless etc.
The word 'less' as an antonym of 'more' came later.

[thestoat]

I'm sure you're right Sean - just trying to throw Lo a rope ... though she seems wedded to her shovel

[Sean]

There's nothing else for it, I'll alert the dictionary and thesaurus people and alert them to the changes. It's probably going to be easier for the rest of the world to adapt than to convince Lo she may be less than 100% right...