Chris Barker wrote:
> I would agree with you, Moose, if it were possible to have degrees of
> ambivalence ... and if it were possible for a person, rather than an idea, to
> be so.
>
It may be 'Murkin usage, or perhaps idiosyncratic on my part, but I
believe both of those things to be true. Let's look and see -
The 'Merkin Merriam-Webster Dictionary opines:
--------------------------------------------
ambivalence
One entry found.
Main Entry: am·biv·a·lence
* Pronunciation: \am-ˈbi-və-lən(t)s\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
* Date: 1918
1 : simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (as attraction
and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action
2 a : continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite) b :
uncertainty as to which approach to follow
--------------------------------------------
The above leads me to believe that it is to a person, rather than an
idea, that the term properly applies.
It also seems to me implicit in the definition that the degree to which
one may have ambivalent feelings may vary. No feelings are only
absolutes. "continual fluctuation" is rather a matter of varying
degrees, no?
The OED may disagree, but they want money for their definitions, so I'll
stick with my US of English. "Don't Tread On Me"
A. Tendentious Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|