thefan wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 12:09
> but refs in stripes are, i think, the original version
> of them. or stripes are the original uniform for refs.
No disagreement there.
thefan wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 12:09
> maybe, Toad knows exactly what original means and you
> only half know what it means.
Toad suggested that it would be "original" for the AUDL to
have their refs wear stripes. Does that really fit any of
the definitions you listed?
thefan wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 12:09
> belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of
> something, or to a thing at its beginning
Clearly, AUDL refs wearing stripes would not be the
beginning of refs wearing stripes, nor does it belong to the
origin. It only pertains to the origin insofar as they are
the same - but if you use that logic to consider something
original, then EVERYTHING should be considered original, as
any given thing would either be truly original or the same
as something else that is original.
thefan wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 12:09
> a primary form or type from which varieties are derived.
Again, obviously, AUDL refs wearing stripes would not be a
primary form from which varieties are derived. (In fact, it
would be an example of a variety derived from the
original.)
thefan wrote on Tue, 31 January 2012 12:09
> an original work, writing, or the like, as opposed to
> any copy or imitation.
AUDL refs wearing stripes would be an imitation of other
sports in which refs wore stripes. Again, not original.
So... how is it original for AUDL refs to wear stripes?