The Pedant's Gambit

I propose that this term should be used for that tiresome challenge one often meets in debate: "Define what you mean by x..."

(I can only find one "hit" of the term on the internet, and not in that context. So I hereby claim its invention.)

I'm very suspicious of the whole business of definition. My standard response to this is: "Define what you mean by define."

Every definition rests on terms which themselves require definition. It's a silly game.

Of course, there's a place for definition in law and other specialist contexts. But even here, things get fuzzy.

I was a member of a jury once. I remember the barrister giving us the following (apparently celebrated) example of what "reasonable doubt" entails. If a person walks into a building all wet, you can know it's raining beyond a reasonable doubt. They might be filming a movie outside and have some kind of rain machine, but that's highly unlikely.

I consider that fuzzy.

People only play the definitions game to score points and throw their opponent, anyway. We all use words every day without demanding definitions and we generally understand each other.

I suppose an exception is words and phrases that do have several different usages, such as "sanction". (I've been married to an American for thirteen years and we still occasionally hit the Shavian obstacle of "two countries divided by a common language." As in; "Why was there a buoy in the water? Why didn't someone pull him out?" But rarely.)

Yes, I've been arguing with someone on the internet. (I try not to.)