Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9475319" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Given you completely ignored every argument I gave you, literally not even engaging with one of them on the merits, with completely specious responses...I'm not really sure why I'm replying.But, again, as I have said: Is it useful to call it that? Language is a tool humans made. That tool can be good, bad, indifferent.For the vast majority of people, it is not useful to call a hot dog a sandwich. Therefore, because language IS usage, it is not a sandwich. If you, in your specific subcultural group(s), find that it IS useful...awesome! Do it. Nobody can stop you--nor should they. But neither should you be telling them that they are wrong.For the vast majority of people, it is not useful to call coffee a soup, nor is it useful to call soups beverages. Therefore, because language IS usage, it is not a soup. If you, in your specific subcultural group(s), find that it IS useful...awesome! Do it. Nobody can stop you--nor should they. But neither should you be telling them that they are wrong.The only time any of this becomes a problem is when groups with different usages come into contact. That happens with things as fine as minor variations in word sense in rural vs urban diction, and as massive as whole language that diverged thousands of years ago, and everything in between.For example, is coffee juice? In Japanese, &quot;shiru&quot; (汁) can be used to mean &quot;soup,&quot; but it can also be used to mean &quot;sauce&quot; or even &quot;juice.&quot; Since that's the Japanese word, surely it is then correct to say that coffee is a juice and a soup and a sauce? And now we can go digging in further languages, I'm sure, to find other terms that apply to coffee and also to other things, which necessarily means coffee is merely a &quot;specific one&quot; of those things, right?Or we can recognize that language is usage, that categories are invented for human needs and interests, and that membership in a category is not strictly defined like it is in geometry (which is never perfectly accurate to the real physical world anyway!), but rather the product of many human decisions over many lifetimes in many different places.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9475319, member: 6790260"] Given you completely ignored every argument I gave you, literally not even engaging with [I]one[/I] of them on the merits, with completely specious responses...I'm not really sure why I'm replying. But, again, as I have said: Is it [I]useful[/I] to call it that? Language is a tool humans made. That tool can be good, bad, indifferent. For the vast majority of people, it is not useful to call a hot dog a sandwich. Therefore, [I]because language IS usage[/I], it is not a sandwich. If you, in your specific subcultural group(s), find that it IS useful...awesome! Do it. Nobody can stop you--nor should they. But neither should you be telling them that they are wrong. For the vast majority of people, it is not useful to call coffee a soup, nor is it useful to call soups beverages. Therefore, [I]because language IS usage[/I], it is not a soup. If you, in your specific subcultural group(s), find that it IS useful...awesome! Do it. Nobody can stop you--nor should they. But neither should you be telling them that they are wrong. The only time any of this becomes a problem is when groups with different usages come into contact. That happens with things as fine as minor variations in word sense in rural vs urban diction, and as massive as whole language that diverged thousands of years ago, and everything in between. For example, is coffee [I]juice?[/I] In Japanese, "shiru" (汁) [I]can[/I] be used to mean "soup," but it can also be used to mean "sauce" or even "juice." Since that's the Japanese word, surely it is then [I]correct[/I] to say that coffee is a juice and a soup and a sauce? And now we can go digging in [I]further[/I] languages, I'm sure, to find other terms that apply to coffee and also to other things, which necessarily means coffee is merely a "specific one" of those things, right? Or we can recognize that language is usage, that categories are invented for human needs and interests, and that membership in a category is not strictly defined like it is in geometry (which is never perfectly accurate to the real physical world anyway!), but rather the product of many human decisions over many lifetimes in many different places. [/QUOTE]

Verification