Did you know that the Ancient Egyptian verb jtn/itn means to object, oppose, or contradict? As a noun, it means disc or round circular subject. As an -ism, that’s contrarianism. Which, coincidentally, is built circular reasoning.

That’s the evolutionary history of the word etymon, whether we like it or not. We’re not the arbiters, but the etymon is.

Hence why etymology is the study or logic of the true meaning. Correct and incorrect chronologies aren’t popularly defined, correct?

Well, before we go to the etymology of Zionism, we have to establish what the etymon actually is.

And yes, that is broadly correct, but a little more deeply, the etymon is the oblique case, derived from etymos the subject. Etymos means true meaning, true sense, true one.

Do you disagree?

If we understand the perspective from which it is that you present correctly, you believe that there are those on the right who are against both economic and political class hierarchies?

Language has no single purpose, though it greases the wheels of cognition, yes. It’s a system of semiotics embedded in the brains of a bunch of primates; communication, organization, and many other things.

Inherited from previous generations. Descent with modification.

What does etymon mean?

That’s akin to saying that one’s evolutionary history does not determine their taxonomy. As you know, meaning never exists in a vacuum, but follows an evolutionary path.

The etymology is the catalogue of a sign’s semantics, and shows order of precedence, hence why it’s the baseline true meaning.

You just said that you don’t have a definition, but that you determine when to remove the etymology. Now you’re saying that you have several functional definitions.

The etymon determines the true meaning of a derivative morpheme, does it not?

If your mind were to lack a functional definition of “Zionism”, then you wouldn’t recognize the term in the first place. It would just be a sound or symbol without diachronic context.

If one follows the logic of true meaning, their starting principle is, as you know, that which was here first.

It’s your argument that the baseline is something other than the etymology. Words don’t pop out of thin air.

I originally asked whose word it belonged to if it wasn’t the person that coined it or the etymology, and you couldn’t answer.

So, to confirm, your definition removes etymology as baseline?

The etymology is the catalogue of all meanings that a word, or more specifically a morpheme, has held across its history, including the chronological order that they evolved in.

If you’re asserting that there are competing definitions, then you’re not starting from the etymology as the baseline?

You had to first make the choice to detach the etymology from your meaning. Remember that all words and concepts are semiotic symbols in the brain of a primate. Walk us through this.

What criteria did you use to negate the etymology or the people who coined the term as your baseline anchor?

So, you’ve declared that the meaning is arbitrary?

Which one preceded the other?

Arbitrary relates to arbiters who arbitrate in an arbitration process. You said that neither definition takes precedence if two definitions conflict, did you not?

So, it’s up to each individual’s whim? That’s an arbitrary process, is it not? If it’s not, how are you defining arbitrary?

Can you confirm that you wrote that the definition of Zionism is “populist, in a way that does not admit a clear definition”?

Well, it is arbitrary if you’ve declared an arbitration process to dispute the etymology or the person(s) that coined the term.

I asked who owns the word, and you said that it’s a popularly defined concept, did you not?

So, then you’ve defined Zionism as an arbitrary concept?

That’s an interesting hypothesis. So, which meaning is it that you believe takes precedence if two contradict?

The etymology looks pretty clear. A synecdoche for Biblical Israel. That doesn’t answer my question, though.

If it’s not the etymology or the person who coined it, then whose word is it and which takes precedence? This sounds like you’re stating that the definition is arbitrary?

If it’s not the etymology or the person who coined the term, then whose word is it, and which meaning takes precedence?

“Self-referential circuits” is a very interesting line. Circular reasoning. A is A type stuff.

At its core, it’s the ideology or principle of Zion. That’s the root morpheme from which meaning is carried. Unless you see other morphemes. I just see those two.

Also, if it’s neither the person(s) that coined the term, nor the etymology, then whose word is it, and whose meaning takes precedence?

You said RGS Pol’s definition was incorrect. Without a working functional definition, you couldn’t determine it one way or another.

So, what’s the answer?

Do you believe that Zionism is a necessary part of Judaism?

I think that, going forward, you should acknowledge whether you are in accordance with that statement.

I haven’t mentioned anything about that. I’m simply observing that a worldview which is bound to a location in space is also bound to a location in time.

I’m surprised that you don’t see the shift in first principles.

A worldview that is bound to a specific place is a worldview that is bound by a specific time.

Learning a new language is a difficult challenge. Instead of learning concepts in isolation, which requires forming new neural circuits at the cost of time, repetition, calories, etc., try to use the etymology to identify related words and concepts that you already know in your native language.

Not sure what you mean. What makes it incorrect?