create new account | forgot password


posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:42PM

Ok, so if anarchy is directly from "an archos", AND we're defining the term based solely on its linguistic roots, then "anarchy" can mean:

1.   without monarchy
2.   without oligarchy
3.   no monarchy
4.   no oligarchy

But a government is neither a monarchy nor is it an oligarchy ...

hmmm...
Link | Parent


 
 

posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:46PM

You'll notice the roots of the words monARCHY and oligARCHY. A MON-ARCHY is one-man-ruler. An OLI-GARCHY is a group-of-rulers Common sense /should/ lead you to the definition of anARCHY ... NO RULERS.

posted by Driusan on August 29th, 2008 at 6:57PM

Ancient Greek morphology is "common sense"?

posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:59PM

Yes. I can't think of any confusing examples. It worked beautifully in this case until people fucked it up with entirely unrelated ideas.

posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 7:58PM

It's not confusing.   My point is that it's vague.

Not really. Even with the wier by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 8:15PM.