And, here we go: dug up this gem from elsewhere in this comment tree:
> A "dynamic" type system isn't actually a type system.
"<foo-berly> type" isn't "type". Use my definition, god damn it! "Type" really refers to "<bar-istic> type".
(Dynamic is scary, so scare quotes are fitting, by the way).
Only if you're willing to insert "<qualifier> typed". Without at least one <qualifier>, the debate is meaningless: every party assumes that unqualified "typed" means "<qualified> type" for some different choice of <qualified> and then it's just about asserting word semantics.