Re: [none]

> > >         Amphibious animals can breathe underwater.\
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Sorry, but he's right.

No, he's not.  See frogs for an example.

> >   Here's what Merriam-Webster
> > > had to
> > > say:
> > >
> > >         "3. able to live both on land and in water <amphibious
> > > plants>"
> >
> > This is plants.  We're talking animals.
>
> Perhaps you should learn how to read a dictionary before coming to
> such
> abrupt and incorrect assumptions.

I have.  Evidently you and he haven't.

> 1. A dictionary is nothing more than a collection of the meanings *by
> most
> common usage* of words. The most common usage of this word *is* the
> ability
> to breathe (perhaps respire would be a more accurate term) either air
> or
> water.

Incorrect.  And since we're looking up the definition of this word your
assumption that this is the most common usage defies logical argument.

> 2. In a dictionary, enclosing a word of phrase in a bracket of some
> kind
> denotes an example. Examples are never exclusive.

Not correct either.  Examples are quite often excluisve.  For instance
any example excludes the possibility that any contrary statement is all
inclusively true.  Hence, one of the prime reasons for examples.

> 3.  The common earthworm is also amphibious. It respires through it's
> skin,
> and can do so anywhere there is free oxygen, be it under ground, in
> the air,
> or in the water.

That's very interesting given all the earthworms that come to the
surface rather than drown when it rains.  Not that it matters.

> As noted above, neither he nor the dictionary were referring to
> plants
> specifically.

As noted above he used plants as an example.  There are many examples.
If he wishes to prove his point (which was amphibious creatures can
breathe water and is incorrect) then he needs to stick to animals
examples and definitions.  Just to make this very clear (since frogs
wasn't, apparently):  aquatic creatures are even more capable of living
in water than amphibians by definition.  Dolphins are aquatic.
Dolphins do not breathe water.  Thus we have an excluding example that
proves my point.  The defintion of aquatic does not mean "breathes
water".  Just as the definition of amphibious does not mean "able to
breathe water".  Whether or not soem amphibious creatures are able to
breathe water his assumptions and statements are incorrect as they are
all encompassing.

 Amphibious means a lot more than just breathing, too.
> It also
> defines vehicles that function on land, or in water.

Exactly.  Which is why it includes frogs.  Who *cannot* breathe water.

 It is a *very*
> broad
> definition. Your usage narrows the definition to one that is
> definitely not
> in common usage, even in my college biology classes.

*His* usage is what was being discussed in the post (for reference look
at the first line of this post).  His usage narrowed the definition to
those creatures able to breathe water.  By example I have proven this
incorrect.  I'm sure your biology class has even more examples.

=====

Do you really think I'd admit to stealing that much money in my email sig?  Uhh, don't answer that.

The crazier the people are around me the saner I am.  That's why I work
in an asylum.  No, not the rubber room again!  No, but, but, my email...




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online and get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/