The story of the etymology is one thing, but the common understanding of what "daemon" is, outside of computing, speaks to the inherent volatility and evolution of meanings in the English language. If you check Webster's dictionary[1] you'll see that (1) it's merely an alternative spelling of "demon" and (2) it's primary definition is that of 'an evil spirit.' It's not until the 5th option that a reference to computing is mentioned: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daemon
[1] Noah Webster created his first dictionary as a resource to use alongside the King James Bible because he had observed, in his lifetime, the drift of the meanings of words to the point that what the words meant when the KJV was written were being understood differently. His goal was for Bible scholars to have a fixed point of reference to what the meaning of words should be when reading and interpreting the Bible. We can see this in the US Constitution where the common understanding of the word "regulate" in the late 1700s means to "to make regular" -- which in modern language would be rendered as un-regulated. Reading the Interstate Commerce Clause with the understanding of the words as they were used at the time gives almost an opposite understanding to what was meant at the time.
> We can see this in the US Constitution where the common understanding of the word "regulate" in the late 1700s means to "to make regular" -- which in modern language would be rendered as un-regulated. Reading the Interstate Commerce Clause with the understanding of the words as they were used at the time gives almost an opposite understanding to what was meant at the time.
I've seen this rhetoric used somewhat frequently by 2A advocates but it's completely bogus. The word has had the same common meaning in English since at least the early 1600s.[1] Even in Latin the word regula (from which "regulate" originated) was used in the context of governing, control and regulation as we know it today. As in regulae iuris which was literally, the regulation of interpreting the law.[2]
I've yet to see anyone present any argument at all, let alone a reasonable one, that would even form the basis of such a theory for the "changed" meaning. It's always just stated as a fact when, in fact, it seems to be a completely fabricated talking point.
Backing you up with some more sources: Webster's 1828 dictionary [1], which the grandparent cited, does not have the "make regular" definition, but rather definitions consistent with modern usage:
>1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
>2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
>3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary [2] has much briefer definitions, but also defines regulate in an interventionist, controlling sense:
>1. To adjust by rule or method.
>2. To direct.
There is absolutely no basis for the claim that "regulate" used to mean something like the opposite of what it now means.
My understanding is that "regulated" as used in the founding documents was basically synonymous with "ordered" or "organized". It's the opposite of "dysfunctional" or "chaotic", but it doesn't imply any particular authority structure.
Reading from your second link, Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language:
> ORDER. s [ordo, Lat.] 1. Method; regular disposition. 2. Established process. 3. Proper state. 4. Regularity; settled mode. 5. Mandate; precept; command. 6. Rule; regulation. 7. Regular government. [8-12: other senses not obviously relevant here] 13. Measures; care. [14: a sense specific to architecture]
(Italics are my emphasis; I've highlighted every word related to "regulated". "s" after the headword seems to indicate a noun.)
> To ORDER, v. a. [from the noun/] 1. To regulate; to adjust; to manage; to conduct. 2. To manage; to procure. 3. To methodize; to depose fitly. 4. To direct, to command. [5: one other irrelevant sense]
Here we see that "regulate", "adjust", "manage", and "conduct" are all synonymous. We see that the concept of "order" has special senses relating to organization and to command, as is also true in English today. The only mention of the verb "regulate", which I discussed in my first comment, clearly indicates that it is used in the sense of organizing. There is a special application of this or a related concept to government, "regular" government, noted in sense 7.
"To REGULATE" is given two senses:
> To REGULATE. v. a. [regula, Lat.] 1. To adjust by rule or method. 2. To direct.
And REGULATION is:
> REGULATION. s. [from regulate.] 1. The act of regulating. 2. Method; the effect of regulation.
This is interesting in that it indicates that (in sense 2) "regulation" is a state of being, like "order", resulting from being regulated. The modern sense of the word, referring to a formal rule, is not listed in this dictionary. However, that appears to be an oversight by Johnson: here are the relevant senses of REGULAR:
> REGULAR. a. [regularis, Lat.] 1. Agreeable to rule; consistent with the mode prescribed. 2. Governed by strict regulations.
I don't see an interpretation of "regulations" as used here other than "formal rules". This is what was meant by "regular government" or "order" - a government itself subject to strict regulations. Sense 1 is so unclearly worded that I've included it in case it's relevant, but I believe it's just the sense in which "played" is the regular past tense of "play", while "went" is the irregular past tense of "go". This "regular" means "conforming to a rule".
And:
> REGULARITY. s. [regularité, Fr.] 1. Agreeableness to rule. 2. Method; certain order.
What does "rule" mean?
> RULE. s. [regula, Lat.] 1. Government; empire; sway; supreme command. [2. a ruler] 3. Canon; precept by which the thoughts or actions are directed. 4. Regularity; propriety of behaviour.
> To RULE. v. a. [from the noun.] 1. To govern; to controll; to manage with power and authority 2. To manage. 3. To settle as by rule.
One word has come up in almost everything we've looked up:
> METHOD. s. [methode, Fr. μέθοδ@.] The placing of several things, or performing several operations in the most convenient order.
This isn't especially clear, but there are related entries:
> METHODICAL. a. [methodique, Fr. from method.] Ranged or proceeding in due or just order.
> To METHODISE v. a. [from method.] To regulate; to dispose in order.
This states explicitly that to regulate something is to bring order to it. The sense survives in modern English in a related word, regularize; that distinction was not drawn in the eighteenth century.
I'll continue in a reply to my own comment, because I'm about to shift topics.
My reading of all of that is that "regulated" would have absolutely been understood as meaning "subject to regulation by proper authority" at the time of the Constitution's drafting. The Framers would have considered the states to be the proper authority, and thus the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering in the states' ability to organize militias.
>> "regulated" as used in the founding documents was basically synonymous with "ordered" or "organized". It's the opposite of "dysfunctional" or "chaotic", but it doesn't imply any particular authority structure.
With reference to the first part of my comment (above), I'm going to treat Samuel Johnson's dictionary as having conclusively established that this claim is correct in a general sense; "regulated" bears exactly this meaning some of the time. The dictionary, however, isn't really able to speak to the question of "what does the word mean as it's used in the founding documents?".
You have made this counterclaim:
> A plain reading of the US Constitution[3] paying close attention to the use of "regulate" plainly contradicts this interpretation of the word.
I say that this is false. There are three uses of the word "regulate" in the linked text of the Constitution:
> The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> The Congress shall have Power [...] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, of and foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is only one use of "regulated". It is open to interpretation whether it is simply a participial form of "regulate" or whether it has developed a special sense.
Let's look at some other founding documents:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-... is a letter from George Washington, in which he complains about the "irregular and disjointed State of the Militia", and states that the solution should be "a well regulated Militia law". In this letter, we can note the following aspects of usage:
1. A "well regulated Militia" is the opposite of an "irregular and disjointed Militia".
2. The effect of a "well regulated Militia law" is to "reduce [the Militia] to some order". "Order" is of course, as we learned from Samuel Johnson, synonymous with "regulation", so this is an unsurprising usage. But George Washington's use of synonyms lets us be fairly precise about what he means - his meaning lies in the space indicated by all of his synonymous words.
3. The specific method by which the militia should become "well regulated" is not to impose any additional rules on the militia, but to provide it with "good Officers" who would set a better example than the current officers, and "protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants [of the province]".
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=d... is a speech from 1798, after the Bill of Rights had been written, in which George Clinton nevertheless helps us understand the contemporary meaning of the second amendment by referring to it with a synonym rather than a direct quotation:
> THE means of national defence should rest in the body of the people. A well organized militia is the only safe bulwark of a free people, competent on all occasions to repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Standing armies are not only expensive but dangerous to the liberties of the state. In republics every citizen should be a soldier.
It seems likely that George Clinton understood "a well regulated militia" to mean "a well organized militia", since he used those exact words to refer to the concept.
So no, I can't conclude that a close reading of the Constitution leads to the inescapable conclusion that "regulated" as used in the Constitution cannot be interpreted as meaning "ordered" or "organized"; the opposite is true.
In the Washington letter, he clearly is referring to "regulating" the militia by modifying the law under which it is organized. The primary concern he and Livingston express about the existing New Jersey militia law is that it allows "[a] Man capable of bearing Arms [to] buy off their Service by a trifling Sum" in lieu of service, as well as "suffering an appeal to lay before a Court of Judicature". I don't think this endorsement of mandatory conscription of armed men without option of appeal to the court tends toward supporting a libertarian view of the Second Amendment, nor does it support the case that "regulated" does not imply government regulation.
You can also refer to "organizing" or "reforming" the militia, or anything else, by modifying the law under which it is organized. But that fact doesn't even suggest that "organize" or "reform" refer to the act of issuing laws. And it is clear that being "regulated" [Washington does not refer to "regulating" at all, only to the state of being regulated] also doesn't refer to that act, as Washington uses it. It refers to the opposite of being "irregular".
The argument "I don't like George Washington's ideas about militia reform -> 'regulated' means governed by a body of formal laws" isn't something I would be proud to advance.
If what you're trying to argue here is that the Second Amendment does not _obligate_ states to pass militia laws, I would have to agree, although that doesn't seem to me to be a point of controversy. Otherwise, this is beginning to feel like Calvinball.
It is clear from your own sources that the Framers would have considered state legislation to be an appropriate vehicle to attain the goal of a "well-regulated militia". The original question here is whether the Constitution's usage of "regulate" or "regulated" differs in any meaningful way from the modern understanding of those words, and you have convincingly demonstrated that it does not.
> It is clear from your own sources that the Framers would have considered state legislation to be an appropriate vehicle to attain the goal of a "well-regulated militia".
Of course? But what conclusion are you trying to draw from that statement?
The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. George Washington proposes a "well regulated militia law" which obligates everyone who can bear arms to serve when called upon. In what way does that interfere with the right to bear arms?
> The original question here is whether the Constitution's usage of "regulate" or "regulated" differs in any meaningful way from the modern understanding of those words, and you have convincingly demonstrated that it does not.
But here, you're not actually reading my comment(s). We can see that the Constitution's usage of "regulated" is considered synonymous with "organized" and opposite to "irregular" and "disjointed". No such usage would make sense given the modern understanding of the words. But that is how the words were used at the time.
> We can see that the Constitution's usage of "regulated" is considered synonymous with "organized" and opposite to "irregular" and "disjointed". No such usage would make sense given the modern understanding of the words. But that is how the words were used at the time.
I don't understand this at all.
Modern usage of "regulated" can mean either "organized" or "under law". Indeed, in many cases it is just a difference of degree. Perhaps the more common usage is "regular" (as in "regular season"), but it's not some massive difference in meaning where they mean the opposite.
Here, I'll read off hits for "regulated" in COCA (Corpus of Colloquial American [English], https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ ). There are more than 7000; I'll just take them top down until I lose energy.
> German business owners are more than eager to escape their high-wage heavily regulated union environment
> It is also regulated and controlled by a supranational regulatory body (the WTO)
> and Finland where cell phones, cable TV, other services and products are better regulated and at far lower costs
> "yet they still aren't regulated as hazardous waste. If we really want 'clean coal', we need
> Making the mark-up as opaque as possible. When you are forced or regulated into revealing the mark-up
> fees that get taxed in NY and (hello?) regulated under NY and US laws.
> an aspect of human behavior that is regulated by society through the operation of justice
> aspects of human behavior that are totally regulated by society
> but one of the largest sources, at cook, will be regulated by a [traffic] light
> Greenstein said the exchanges as envisioned in the federal law are too regulated, likely raising costs and limiting choice.
> The fact is, "fair markets" (free markets are not fair, and fair markets are not free) must be carefully and dutifully regulated. And over most of the US's past, it had extensive and good regulation.
> You look at the financial industry as the least regulated. I disagree. The problem is that money is the most regulated of all things. We have legal tender laws and taxation
> what we call "free markets" are actually highly protectionist, regimented, regulated, and designed to undermine competition
> Natural gas supplies were regulated almost out of existence until the government
> But, owning personal arms IS being regulated and pretty much has been from the inception of the Second Amendment
> contraception was also illegal in Ireland until 1980 (!) and then were strongly regulated (yes, your doctor had to prescribe you a condom)
...
> Marijuana should be regulated and taxed by the states
> City Council outlawed corporate signage on downtown buildings. We REGULATED, in other words
OK, I'm losing energy. One page of results has 101 entries. I'll code the first page:
Referring to government (or supragovernmental [the WTO] or divine) law: 80
Referring to mechanical control: 11 ("needs a regulated voltage to run")
Referring to some other type of control: 4 ("Sex [is] an aspect of human behavior that is regulated by society")
Referring to a formal rule that is not imposed by any body with enforcement authority [e.g. an agreement on date nights between a husband and wife]: 2
Typo: 1 ("what legislation is necessary to regulated GMOS")
Unclear: 2
That last category, "unclear", does contain an example that might be construed as meaning "orderly":
> I do not subscribe to the notion that we must regulate our population because there are too many people on Earth. Let Nature take its course and allow the population to get regulated through the market forces in a free association of human beings in society.
The source blog is gone, so I'm not able to look into it in more detail than that. This might be an example of using "regulated" to mean "orderly", but that looks extremely unlikely; it's more likely that it refers to the general existence of rules, in this case a code of conduct. (Which would place it in the "other type of control" category.)
It is in fact fair to say that the usage of "regulated" seen in the second amendment has entirely disappeared from modern usage, and that's why people don't understand it and are willing to deny that using the word that way was even a possibility. It is not a possibility now, but it was then.
As I said: "Perhaps the more common usage is "regular" (as in "regular season"), but it's not some massive difference in meaning where they mean the opposite."
Nevertheless, from the same page you referenced here are some where it means "organized":
> future studies may show that the P2X 7 R could be regulated by a range of ligands
> A possible mechanism for this is that it is regulated epigenetically
> while medical staff monitored his condition and regulated his anti - rejection drug
> Let Nature take its course and allow the population to get regulated through the market forces in a free association of human beings in society.
> This is why the regulated evenings - at least this way I know he will be getting one evening
> the practice of Orthodox Judaism, whose followers maintain a life strictly regulated by their interpretation of holy scripture
> a person's conduct is regulated for the most part by socially approved dispositions that are physically realized in the brain
> But if a man's efficiency is not guided and regulated by a moral sense, then the more efficient he is the worse he is
The problem here is that you have not proven in any way that the Second Amendment's use of "well-regulated" does not refer to "government law" or "some other type of control". If you're suggesting that they expected militias to be self-organizing, you need to present at least one instance of a self-organized militia being referred to as "regulated". The evidence you've presented so far makes it clear that contemporary thought understood militias to be organized by law.
If you could find a single example of a militia being "regulated" by anything other than a legal mandate, I have to assume you'd have presented it by now. 1 gazillion points to Calvin; game over.
> The problem here is that you have not proven in any way that the Second Amendment's use of "well-regulated" does not refer to "government law" or "some other type of control".
You're really set on ignoring the George Clinton speech, huh?
The second amendment begins like this:
> A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...
This usage is obsolete; translated into modern English, the same clause would read:
> A well-functioning militia being necessary to the security of a free state...
And it is obvious that this does not refer to the existence of laws, because that's just not part of the meaning of the word. What do you think needs to be proven? Why?
> I am unacquainted with the Extent of Your Works and consequently of the Number of Men necessary to man them. If your present Numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all Means advise Your making up the Deficiency out of the best regulated and equipped Militia. [4]
> [4] The draft reads: “out of the best regulated Militia that could be got.”
This is pretty explicit: George Washington anticipates that Philip Schuyler may not have enough troops under his command to achieve his objectives. He recommends mustering troops from the local militia. But he is more detailed than that: he envisions ranking the local militia along a scale of how "regulated" they are, and choosing the men who are best regulated. All of these men are subject to the same laws, but they differ in their degree of regulation.
I sometimes see a similar thing when people are arguing. They sometimes use a different current definition of the same word, and don't even realize. Sometimes I would guess it's intentional.
I can't think of a good example, but I'm reminded of when climate science emails were and leaked and one of the emails had someone applying a 'hack' to the data. One side decided they were doing something underhanded. But hack I believe the use of the term was 'clever method'.
Anyway, I see this often. People are arguing over the definition of words, but they think they're arguing about something else more profound.
A huge part of "culture war", uh, discourse, seems to be driven by inability to agree on common terms and a complete ignorance of how labels relate to reality (so most participants don't even act like they know it's a problem). A better understanding of how slippery identity and "is" are, even for everyday things that seem very certain, would really improve communication there, I think. I'm thinking not just of the extremely obvious topic related to this (trans issues) but also things like abortion, where arguing over essentially arbitrary definitions by treating those definitions as per se important almost entirely crowds out substantial discussion.
What a great point. I've been struggling with the epistemological implications of the copula for the last few months. The existence of the copula and its use seems to imply a shared objective reality, when it's perhaps more explainatory to label the copula as a reality constructing mechanism.
Either way it's use as a universal quantifier eschews nuance. Patterns like "A is B" necessarily lead to differences in reality that are easily resolved when phrased like "I percieve that A is B". Copula-induced fights are ubiquitous.
> Noah Webster created his first dictionary as a resource to use alongside the King James Bible because he had observed, in his lifetime, the drift of the meanings of words to the point that what the words meant when the KJV was written were being understood differently.
This sounds off; the KJV was written in an intentionally archaic style, which guarantees that, at the time of writing, popular understanding of some of the usage would have already diverged from the meaning as written. That was a goal of the project, which makes it a strange "problem" to address with a dictionary.
> This sounds off; the KJV was written in an intentionally archaic style, which guarantees that, at the time of writing, popular understanding of some of the usage would have already diverged from the meaning as written.
This is frequently stated but when it gets down to brass tacks seems to be somewhat exaggerated as the source of all archaisms from the POV of later readers. From what I can tell, while some things (like second person pronoun use) where archaic at the time of writing (and egregiously bad choice of archaism because they created distinctions not made into the source material by using a distinction no longer currently in use in English, either), many others were things that were in transition at the time of writing and which didn't reflect later (and also, in some cases, earlier) common usage (thereof to avoid possessive pronouns as gendered ones relating to inanimate objects were on the way out, but “its” was still not firmly caught on).
But I didn't say every archaism in the KJV was due to an intentional style choice. I said the KJV was intentionally in an archaic style. That fact makes it strange that "this is archaic usage" would be considered a problem in the KJV, regardless of whether the particular archaism was written to be an archaism or just developed into one.
> gregiously bad choice of archaism because they created distinctions not made into the source material by using a distinction no longer currently in use in English, either
All the source languages for the Bible have a second person singular/plural distinction. Or did you mean something else?
Daemon is also simply the original latin spelling of the word.
In this context its interesting to note that the original meaning of the greek daímōn and latin daemon had no intrinsic connotation of evil. It simply was a kind of "spirit", a non-corporeal entity that somehow interacted with the human plain of existence.
Looked at it this way, the use of the word in *nix systems makes perfect sense: A non-corporeal, neutral entity, that interacts with the world at large, goes mostly unseen, and its interactions are (for most daemons) close to userland.
> Reading the Interstate Commerce Clause with the understanding of the words as they were used at the time gives almost an opposite understanding to what was meant at the time.
> Reading the Interstate Commerce Clause with the understanding of the words as they were used at the time gives almost an opposite understanding to what was meant at the time.
Reading it with today’s meaning might make it opposite if what was meant at the time. Or reading it with the original meaning might make it opposite of what it would mean today.
But reading with the older meaning shouldn’t make it the opposite if what was meant at the (older) time.
> (1) it's merely an alternative spelling of "demon"
Combine this with the BSD Daemon illustration [0] and you've got my personal idea of where daemon came from.
Which was shattered just last week when I attended a conference presentation by a jungian analyst who definitely did not use daemon in the sense of demon.
[1] Noah Webster created his first dictionary as a resource to use alongside the King James Bible because he had observed, in his lifetime, the drift of the meanings of words to the point that what the words meant when the KJV was written were being understood differently. His goal was for Bible scholars to have a fixed point of reference to what the meaning of words should be when reading and interpreting the Bible. We can see this in the US Constitution where the common understanding of the word "regulate" in the late 1700s means to "to make regular" -- which in modern language would be rendered as un-regulated. Reading the Interstate Commerce Clause with the understanding of the words as they were used at the time gives almost an opposite understanding to what was meant at the time.