Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !

[Ned Batchelder]

On 11/26/13 8:26 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:52:11 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Roy Smith [...] wrote:
>>> We live in an international world (otherwise we wouldn't
>>> need that annoying unicode stuff).  When you say,
>>> "effort to be understandable", what you're really saying
>>> is, "everybody should be just like me". Unfortunately,
>>> that's not going to happen.  Or maybe fortunately, since
>>> variety and exploring different cultures is part of what
>>> makes life interesting.
>
> Agreed. Exposing oneself to new experiences is greatly
> beneficial to ones understanding of the world.
>
> However, you (and Chris, and Tim) seem to be ignoring the
> 500lb gorilla in the room, and are only concerned with
> chastising the people who are complaining about the
> offensive odors the animal's feces is emanating.
>
> Even if you are correct that the OP is using a regional
> variation of English, you fail to realize that this
> "regional redefinition" of the English word: "doubts" to
> mean what the *majority* of  English speaking world
> understands as "questions", cannot be justified OUTSIDE of
> his region.
>
> It's not like he's using a NEW word; a word that has never
> been defined, NO, his region has redefined a widely
> understood word. Imagine if he used a NEW word:
>
>      My curflabals are:
>        1. blah
>        2. blah
>        ...
>
>      My boygenjoygens are:
>        1. blah
>        2. blah
>        ...
>
> In the previous examples we show that introducing a NEW word
> is fine, because, at least when we encounter a NEW word we
> will *instantly* know that we need to find a definition for
> the NEW word BEFORE we can *fully* comprehend what the
> author is trying to tell us.
>
> So when we see the word "questions" followed by an
> enumerated listing, we know that that the author seeks
> *specific* answers to *specific* questions and is requesting
> those answers from a mostly unemotional point of view
> (inquisitiveness).
>
> HOWEVER,
>
> When we see the word "doubts", followed by an enumerated
> listing, we falsely believe the lad is confused or has some
> level of concern. In other words, he is asking for answers
> but his request is the result of an internal emotional
> distress, therefor, not only will he need his questions
> answered directly, he also requires a deeper understanding
> of the problem (and maybe even coddling) BEFORE he can
> equalize his emotional state to acceptable levels.
>
>      HELPING SOMEONE EXCOMMUNICATE THEMSELVES OF DEMONIC
>      EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS A NOBLE PURSUIT, HOWEVER,
>      SANCTIONING THE ILLOGICAL DISCOMBOBULATION OF
>      DEFINED WORDS FROM THEIR UBIQUITOUS DEFINITIONS CAN
>      BE NOTHING LESS THAN ILLOGICAL SUICIDE BY EMOTION.
>
> Now... *hopefully* we can understand why the words "question"
> and "doubt" should NEVER be used interchangeably.
>
> But for those of you who still seek coddling, read on...
>
> ============================================================
>>> When you say, "effort to be understandable", what you're
>>> really saying is, "everybody should be just like me".
> ============================================================
>
> That sword can cut both ways friend.
>
> But let's take a step back, drop the knee jerk politically
> correct emotional responses, and look at this issue from a
> objective point of view.
>
> Most arguments supporting the OP's incorrect use of "doubt"
> are suggesting that we must be "open" to regional uses of
> English, even if those uses are illogical? They chastise us
> for even thinking that "WE" are the final judges of what
> "doubt" should mean.
>
> Okay, that's fair. To be impartial we must provide evidence
> to back up our logical claims. But who could possibly be
> impartial?
>
>   "We shall consult the oracle!"
>
> In every country in the world there exist a Guru, a virtual
> Guru who can answer almost any question; define almost any
> word; and find almost anything your filthy little fingers can
> peck into a keyboard.
>
>    Surprise! i'm talking about GOOGLE.
>
> Since the ENTIRE world knowledge is available online, let's
> allow the "Google mind hive" to decide our petty little
> problem for us, eh?
>
> ============================================================
>   Your challenge, if you choose to accept it:
> ============================================================
> Can someone, ANYONE, show me a *respectable* dictionary or
> online definition database that defines the word "doubt" as
> the OP intended? Remember, it must be in English!
>
> ============================================================
>   The reality, if you choose to believe it:
> ============================================================
> But even IF you *can* show me one, or even a couple of measly
> examples, do you *REALLY* expect that your hand-full of
> examples can tilt the balances of reason and logic in your
> favor AGAINST the mountains of evidence that clearly judges
> the OP's use of "doubt" to be wrong?
>
> ============================================================
>   The result, if you choose to fight it.
> ============================================================
>   "Going... Goooing......... GONE!"
>   "Rick has done it again!"
>   "A new home-run record!"
>
>> That said, though, there are a few phrases that we all
>> learn to avoid. I'm used to talking about "knocking up" a
>> rough prototype, but when I started communicating
>> internationally more, I consciously started saying
>> "knocking together" instead, to avoid confusing certain
>> groups of people
>
> What do phrases and slang have to do with clearly defined
> word constants Chris?. The words: "question" and "doubts",
> are *CLEARLY* defined words, and have been for many, *MANY*
> years. Please don't attempt to distract my people with such
> sophistry!

Rick, through all the verbiage, I've lost track of what you are 
advocating.  The OP asks a question and uses the word doubt in a way 
that is unusual to you and many other, though not unusual where he is 
from.  What is it you want us to do?

Why not just relax and answer his question and leave it at that?  You 
learned something about another part of the world, and the OP gets an 
answer to his question.  If you like, you can also point out to him that 
the more usual word "question" might be more widely understood. 
Win/win/win.

And will you be here to explain to time-travelling Shakespeare why we 
are all of us speaking English completely wrong (to his ears)?

--Ned.