Etymology and definition
Would someone like to discuss these?--Mrg3105 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to me to include "..of civilised people". Who is "civilised"? Civilised people don't commit massacres?
- Although the etymology seems plausible, it is not what TLFi gives as the etymology of the word (Celtic not Germanic) => add source + macecler *matteu-culare first being cognate with massue, machete second possibly col throat, same meaning as cut-throat, coupe-gorge
I would like to comment, yes...first, on your point made on the definition-I completely agree. in To further clarify what i believe to be the same point i would make, i'd like to speak in the first person as if i were the author of that particular definition...here goes :)
that particular word serves to differentiate the class/type/etc. of person that would (or only could, by virtue of being of the type not indicative of one who would be considered to be civilized) commit this specific act from the (same/parallel distinctive noun/adjective, e.g. "class" of person, spec. "civilized") person who could not possibly commit the same act simply by virtue of being determined to be "civilized". to rephrase for the sake of brevity, and to not appear as though i may be classified as one who can be described as being pedantic by bombastic digressions, loquaciously making aplenty copious amounts of arbitrary verbosity with circumlocutory rhetoric ramblings-on, all the while randomly veering off onto garrulous tangents, and in an attempt to articulate my (specifically the second) point succinctly, let me simply say this: if one were to expect to belong in a class of people known to be civilized, that person's (hypothetical for the sake of making clear the intention of specifying who the "civilized" class of people are by defining actions taken or acts done to accomplish the same end, but by a different means, a means that, when carried out, the perpetrator could not be defined as being "civilized". For further edification/clarification, it may behoove you to refer to the definition of the verb form of "massacre", which specifically makes clear the intention for distinction between the two classes of people, coining the term "nations of people" in lieu of aforementioned sentiments and/or specific terms describing the same class of people.
in conclusion (collusion, confusion, whatever), if one is to be considered as being civilized, or being a natural representative of a nation defined my masses of people belonging to the same class(es), or of the same persuasion, if said person commits multiple acts of murder, all in the same (ambiguous) time period, has no particular reason and has nobody specifically in mind, said person would need to lie about all of that; after all, only sociopaths and those considered to have borderline personality disorder massacre people---we civilized people of nations simply kill a bunch of people, and pretend to have a reason.