brown-bag

9 comments

• This (“brown bag” in this agricultural context) raises the interesting subject (issue? quandary?) of a colloquial or slang term that has very different meanings in different contexts – all (or most) of which meanings may be quite different from or an extension from the term’s original or literal meaning.

• They totally got this definition wrong. To “‘brown bag’ it” is to bring/use your own <whatever> so as to save money. It stems from the practice of bringing your own homemade lunch (in a brown bag) rather than buying it (and paying more).

  Thus, the broader definition of “brown-bagging” would be: To use a self-produced/made version, rather than a more expensive pre-made/ commercial version (definition needs work).

  The definition used here is far to restrictive. It would be like reading a story about a police escapee, and then defining “run away” as: v. to illegally escape.

• You’re wrong, Eoin, on several counts. The main point of this web site is fringe English. I’m not wasting my time by redefining senses that are well-covered elsewhere. It behooves you to pay more attention before spouting off on a subject about which you know little.

• Other places you’re wrong:

  —It’s not “totally” wrong. It’s not even partially wrong.

  —It’s not necessarily about saving money as it is about fraud or innocence about the law.

  —This brown-bagging doesn’t “stem from the practice of bring your own homemade lunch.” It stems from the practice of using brown bags to carry seeds.

  —The broader definition, if we wanted to bother, would be “to use a brown paper bag.” Subsenses would be something like: to conceal, carry, or sell alcohol; to carry a lunch to work or school; to illegally sell proprietary seed varieties.

  —The definition is, by the mission of this site, restrictive. It covers undocumented or underdocumented terms and meanings. Therefore, no point in bothering with the other senses.

• It’s not a weakness. I just don’t cater to the willfully stupid.

• These other gents still have a good point, Grant. You need to documentthe “original” or “main” sense, even if your concern is simply to introduce a new usage. Otherwise, it does look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  All the best…

• That’s simply not how it will ever work on this site, which is explained at length on the about page. Read it and get educated. This is a supplementary dictionary that, as it says on EVERY page, focuses on slang, jargon, and new words. There are plenty of other dictionaries already covering mainstream English. If a visitor is too ignorant or lazy to visit them, then I can’t help them. If they prefer to believe they that they have some kind of special knowledge of English that I don’t, fine, but they shouldn’t be surprised at my smackdown when they bring the obvious and the ordinary to a place that traffics little in it.

• Love that personality, Grant.

  Sure, having an About page is great.
  But also giving original sources or senses is indispensible for a site like this.
  For instance, the source for “Costanza wallet” is great. It would be quite simple to give the initial sense of words you include that were already in usage, and have simply changed in usage.
  Otherwise, despite what your About page says, and no matter how many smackdowns you feel you must give, your site’s validity will be called into question time and again. It’s a simple matter of clarity, a must for any dictionary. I hope you’ll consider making the change.
  None of us have any ill will against you.

• Oh, and I think this is a great idea for a site. I think we’re just pointing out a weakness that could be easily addressed.