Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
No, I'd never heard the word. Now, thanks to the author of Harry's book and the dictionary, I know what it means.
|
Well... you know the translation of the Latin roots, not necessarily what it means. Or is the fertilizer still sub rosa?
Quote:
|
Thanks to this thread, I'm also now aware of a technical use of a form of the word in biology.
|
Which is a good thing, as it isn't used any other way... Unless, of course, you know of one? Or anyone else does? So far, have we heard of anyone actually hearing this word used, except in the example of the first poster displayed? Quite a few well-read people have contributed to this thread, yet no one has shown any other familiarity with the term, only book definitions. But please, cling to them if you wish to.
Quote:
|
As for the map and the terrain, all it may mean is that you think that your familiarity with your little plot of ground makes your assumptions about places you've never even heard of more accurate than the accounts of travelers from those parts.
|
I'd be more than happy to hear 'accounts of travelers from those parts.' There doesn't seem to be any though. Only people who looked at a map and decided they were experts in the terrain because the map was made by a reputable company. No matter how good the map, it's still just marks on paper, and will never equal the knowledge gained walking the trails.
I do have to say that places I've often traveled are better known to me than places I have only read about. I think most experienced travelers would agree. And certainly more accurate. If I'd only traveled them once, I could agree with you. The guide book is often helpful... if it's accurate. All too often they are not. 50 years of familiarity with the term have to have 'some' influence on my understanding. Certainly more than looking up a word in a dictionary once.
And as I said, how about we agree to disagree?
Stitchawl