1

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?

New Alexandria
  • 3,879
  • 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? –  Nov 01 '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 01 '12 at 22:42
  • I'll go with M-W: "gunfight a hostile encounter in which antagonists with guns shoot at each other." –  Nov 01 '12 at 22:44
  • 4
    As opposed to a friendly encounter in which antagonists with guns shoot at each other. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 01 '12 at 22:52
  • In a dogfight, is it necessary that both the antagonists have dogs? – Edwin Ashworth Nov 01 '12 at 22:55
  • @EdwinAshworth - planes, and yes. You can't be in a dogfight if you're grounded. – Matt E. Эллен Nov 01 '12 at 22:56
  • Can a gossiping happen if only one person is speaking gossip? Yes; 'guilt by association'. Not all of these situations are the same. – New Alexandria Nov 01 '12 at 23:17
  • @Edwin Ashworth: "Hostile" is as necessary in that definition as is the admonishment not to spread your spermicidal jelly on peanut-buttered toast in the morning. In any case, if you're shooting paintballs at each other, I'd still call it a "gunfight", but I'd leave out the "hostile". Paintball "kills" are as fragrant and benign as artificial flowers, only more interesting. –  Nov 01 '12 at 23:24
  • In a dogfight, it's sufficient that both antagonists be dogs -- of one kind or another. In a bitchfest, only one bitch or bitcher is necessary. Sometimes a majority of one is sufficient. –  Nov 01 '12 at 23:30
  • @BillFranke it would also seem that only one person with a gun is sufficient to win a gunfight - the other(s) then are merely unprepared gunfighter(s). – New Alexandria Nov 01 '12 at 23:32
  • 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. :-) –  Nov 01 '12 at 23:49
  • @BillFranke There exist plenty of film and literary references to fights involved two skilled fighters, where only one possesses a gun, and the one with the gun does not always win. – New Alexandria Nov 03 '12 at 18:50
  • If the one without the gun wins, the it's not a gunfight, even if the initially gunless gunfighter shoots the other one with his own gun. To call such a struggle a gunfight is essentially putting lipstick on the pig (cf. Humpty Dumpty): it may be a fight over a gun, but a "gunfight" is a battle in which both sides have guns. Is it a "fistfight" if fighter A has two arms and two fists and fighter B has no arms and no fists? No, it's some other kind of contest. One can always stipulate definitions beforehand, however: War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery. Problem solved. –  Nov 04 '12 at 01:26
  • Here's a recent Slate article that uses the gunfight metaphor. It cites an Indiana Jones movie scene featuring a scimitar wielding fighter and Indy, who has a gun. Then it talks about John Boehner: "Boehner has brought a knife to a gunfight". –  Nov 11 '12 at 05:04

1 Answers1

3

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! =)

Lucky Horse
  • 149
  • 3
  • 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 01 '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 on hiatus Nov 01 '12 at 23:33
  • If words meant whatever people want them to mean, there would be no language. – Roaring Fish Nov 02 '12 at 02:46
  • 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.'" –  Nov 02 '12 at 03:58
  • "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 02 '12 at 04:58
  • "Words mean what PEOPLE want them to mean". While using PEOPLE (instead of A PERSON), this gets full sense!. This is just the way our language envolves: an easier way of saying a word or an expression comes out, and people (some of them, not the whole world and not only one or two) start using it, till it becomes part of language (See this: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/bored-with-or-bored-of/). The same happens with words which change their meaning while time passes, or while it arrives to other countries. As I said, words are magic, so all what all of you said is completly true. – Lucky Horse Nov 02 '12 at 10:41
  • Whether words mean what people want them to mean, or understand them to mean, it's still possible that a word doesn't mean what you want or expect. I've used words in rough drafts, double-checked a dictionary, and then thought, "Yikes! That's not the word I want to use..." That said, I'll grant LuckyHorse this: sometimes dictionaries must play catch-up with culture (for example, some older print dictionaries may indicate that gay means cheerful, and leave it at that). – J.R. Nov 02 '12 at 14:08