Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Dictionaries (M-W) commonly define a gunfight as an exchange of gunfire.

However, the OED defines a gunfight as "a shooting affray". {paywall link}

Several stories & film describe or depict a gunfight where only a single combatant possesses / uses a gun, such as in the 'classic' scene from Indiana Jones.

Given such stories, is it reasonable to assume that a gunfight can involve 2+ people, where only one (presumably the winner) has a gun? Would this be a euphemism for a certain kind of gunfight?

share|improve this question
1  
I wouldn't accept gunfight as an accurate description of a battle between two persons only one of whom had a gun. Would you? –  user21497 Nov 1 '12 at 22:39
    
@BillFranke OED seems to define it that way, and I see scenes like from the Indy movie, and in the Untouchables - so, yes. –  New Alexandria Nov 1 '12 at 22:42
    
I'll go with M-W: "gunfight a hostile encounter in which antagonists with guns shoot at each other." –  user21497 Nov 1 '12 at 22:44
4  
As opposed to a friendly encounter in which antagonists with guns shoot at each other. –  Edwin Ashworth Nov 1 '12 at 22:52
2  
A gunfighter without a gun can't participate in a gunfight. It's different from "singular they/their/them": concrete vs. abstract; reality vs. theory; bullets vs. bullshit. Two gunfighters with one gun = murder, IMHO. :-) –  user21497 Nov 1 '12 at 23:49
show 9 more comments

1 Answer 1

Languages are not Math, they are a Being, they are life... You must not think a word means only what a dictionnary tells you; words mean what people want them to mean, (and then when a high amount of people give them the same meaning, they acquire it). If you want that the 2+ people must have a gun, then call it that way, if not, call it "pseudogunfight".
Be creative, words are magic! =)

share|improve this answer
    
Yea, I think that's what we do on this site - sort out getting "a high amount of people give them the same meaning" :) –  New Alexandria Nov 1 '12 at 22:45
3  
Words do not mean what people want them to mean; if that were so, there would be no need for translators, dictionaries or poets. Words mean what people understand them to mean. –  StoneyB Nov 1 '12 at 23:33
    
If words meant whatever people want them to mean, there would be no language. –  Roaring Fish Nov 2 '12 at 2:46
3  
Once there are words, there is language: Ego loquor, ergo sum. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'" –  user21497 Nov 2 '12 at 3:58
    
"words mean what people want them to mean" -- wonder if there's a need for more than one language in the world any more, or any "language" at all. –  Kris Nov 2 '12 at 4:58
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.