Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bumber]

That castle looks like it was assaulted by someone wielding a huge laser cutter, and afterwards used as a cheap lighthouse foundation

No, it's clearly photoshopped. Some lazy person couldn't be bothered to remove the sky around the lighthouse before pasting it on top of the castle.

[Culise]

Guys please don't get weird at each other over definitions of food and stuff, joking or not. This is supposed to be a nice place and with how things are out in the world right now I think we could all use nice things.

Try to give each other a bit more patience and thought if you can, just because things are stressful doesn't mean we need to stay on edge everywhere.

Thank you, and I'll apologize for almost derailing this thread by starting this mess.

[Iduno]

Santullan Quarry

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Castle and Cathedral

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Castle and Watchtower

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's some good picture-taking, Poo.

[scriver]

Actually, scriver, ORIGINALLY originally fruit meant anything that was food produced by a plant. Grain is fruit too, hence all the "fruited plains" in America. There's usage of it that way in the Bible too. It's not just a definition that botanists made up.

The point is not about what it meant originally, it's about what some people arbitrarily decided it means versus what it means to people

Guys please don't get weird at each other over definitions of food and stuff, joking or not. This is supposed to be a nice place and with how things are out in the world right now I think we could all use nice things.

Try to give each other a bit more patience and thought if you can, just because things are stressful doesn't mean we need to stay on edge everywhere.

Don't worry Gunnyn, I'll drop it after this post if my argument doesn't bear fruit

[bloop_bleep]

But at the point these vile botanists they decided what it meant, most people thought of "fruit" as the food produced by a plant. The botanists' definition wasn't all that different from the commonly accepted meaning at that time. It's the layfolk that later changed their tune.

[Trekkin]

But at the point these vile botanists they decided what it meant, most people thought of "fruit" as the food produced by a plant. The botanists' definition wasn't all that different from the commonly accepted meaning at that time. It's the layfolk that later changed their song.

You also have to ask whose definition is more important. Gangs of botanists aren't going around smacking people upside the head for calling the wrong things fruits, and laypeople will always be at least a little bit wrong about everything just because it's a full-time job to be usefully right about anything and you run headlong into diminishing returns really fast; if all someone does with fruit is buy it at the store and eat it, who cares? Heck, if all someone does with fruit is grow it, they're still going to grow it according to species.

Let the people for whom precision has actual consequences be precise, and everyone else can carry on however they like.

[Reelya]

The same word can also mean very different things in different contexts. Those contexts may or may not overlap. By saying that the word was "used wrong" it just shows a lack of acknowledgement of the correct context. It's actually just a comprehension fail, even if willful.

If someone says they went to the shops for some fruit and vegetables, and you point out that they only went to the shop for fruit, since the vegetables they bought were "technically fruit", then that's actually completely technically wrong, because it failed to decode the message correctly. Language is about conveying messages, it's the senders job to send a clear message, and it's the receivers job to interpret that message: notably, to get the context of meaning correct. It's a failure of comprehension to confuse a word with a homonym when it's clearly indicated which meaning was intended.

[Eschar]

Have we overthrown the prescriptivists yet? No? Hold on, I need to get that guillotine

[Rolan7]

Have we overthrown the prescriptivists yet?

Sure we have!  Depending on what you mean by "prescriptivists", "overthrown", and "we".

[Reelya]

Yup, I could care less what the language prescriptivists think. I literally die every time they go on and on. It's like "Play it again, Sam" from Cassablanca.

[Rolan7]

literally

I'm not actually a prescriptivist, but this remains the best case I've ever seen for it.

[Eschar]

literally

I'm not actually a prescriptivist, but this remains the best case I've ever seen for it.

This author mentions another, and why it's her one exception to descriptivism.

[scriver]

It's actually the botanists that are prescriptivists in this matter

Can I say that without breaking my promise to Gunner? Probably not. I'm sorry, Gunner-chan. I'm weak in the mind. I cannot resist temptation.

[Trekkin]

literally

I'm not actually a prescriptivist, but this remains the best case I've ever seen for it.

There's an argument to be made on the basis of reach, I think. If I'm only talking to people directly, descriptivism works fine, because if we disagree on the meaning of a word we can clarify. If I'm publishing a paper that may be read by someone a hundred years from now in an entirely different part of the world who is fluent in an entirely different set of languages -- or I'm reading such a publication -- it becomes far more important that there be some frame of reference for what words mean. This is exacerbated by the use of algorithms. One can decide words mean whatever they like, but searching the Internet is far more frustrating if Google disagrees with you -- and while Google itself can adapt, databases exist that cannot be searched so flexibly.

Thankfully, this distinction already exists, and is well understood by everyone who communicates in both ways.

[Eschar]

literally

I'm not actually a prescriptivist, but this remains the best case I've ever seen for it.

is well understood by everyone who communicates in both ways.

*narrows eyes*
Is this sarcasm?