Entry into a discussion of Marxist studies requires a willingness to become familiar with the vocabulary used in the field just as in the case of other specialized areas. Requiring the construction of complicated new verbal constructions is unreasonable. (And ultimately uncomprehensible.)
I wrote the original article [[jargon]] but eventually wrote [[technical terminology]] also.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:43:23 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way" that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred