as Geoff Pullum points out, it's already been done.
Quote:
I've noticed that I twitch a little each time I hear someone talking about how what we've got to do is pass a law, or a constitutional amendment, that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, as if something kexicographical was at issue. Yesterday we were treated to the most egregious case of this, when our president told us solemnly that he was "troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage," because "Marriage ought to be defined by the people, not by the courts." And I realized why this kind of talk was making me twitch. This issue is being represented as linguistic, relating to a democratic right of the people to stipulate word definitions, when it's nothing of the kind.
Well, I would take issue with his understanding of the function of a dictionary. A dictionary does not prescribe the definitions of words, it describes them.
Apart from that, his "argument" is a perfect example of begging the question.
(1) You're arguing with the wrong guy; Pullum is one of the world's leading authorities on language and lexicography.
(2) If you read the dictionary definition that Pullum's pointing to, you'll see that usage is precisely his point: that although the root sense is 1 a (1), it has a perfectly well-understood and used meaning 1 a (2).
Linear Mode
