Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 9475341" data-attributes="member: 6750235">It's because you can't help yourself.  My web, you're caught.  ;-PYes, language is a tool humans made.  Calling it good, bad, or indifferent doesn't change the qualitative state of a hotdog as food wrapped in bread.It doesn't matter how useful it is to classify a hotdog as a sandwich.  It simply is a sandwich.  That's no different than classifying a car or truck as an automobile.  They are because of how the language we're talking about has already defined an automobile just like we've already defined a sandwich.I'll point to Subway as an example.  Subway sells sandwiches.  These sandwiches are typically meat stuffed in a long bun that has been split lengthwise and additional toppings are added.  Exactly like a hotdog.  These options include various types of sausage, which is also a category that wieners fall into.These sandwiches include wraps.  The wrap are a specific type of sandwich like a hotdog is a specific type of sandwich.  There's no reason good or bad or indifferent or useful benefit to calling them that.  That's just what they are.Here's a definition of a sandwich:A hotdog is very much a sandwich as a a sandwich is defined.  There's no usefulness in denying that definition anymore than accepting it.  It just is what it is.So if you claimed a car is not an automobile because most people would typically call it a car I'm somehow wrong in recognizing that a car is also an automobile?  We have to apply consistent logic throughout the use of that language do we not?Language is defined as well as used.  We have definitions and these can evolve through usage.  If someone does not know a definition or misuses a word then it would wrong for me to not help them clarify the use of that word.  In the case of a specific term like "hotdog" it's not likely to be an issue.  There are other words that could cause embarrassment or worse if misused that I would rather prevent.  If I help with actual issues and I help with minor issues I'm maintaining that consistency.  If I choose to help with actual issues and ignore minor one's then I'm acting under a double standard in my behavior.  By what moral authority can you tell me it's okay or not okay to act under a double standard?  ;-)When it becomes an issue is when someone who doesn't speak the language well and we're trying to communicate with them in basic words.  We shouldn't assume everyone with whom we speak is literate in the language that we're speaking.  Not everyone has a smart phone handy to translate.This goes back to my last point above.  If a Japanese exchange student here refers to "coffee" as soup in translation they aren't actually wrong.  It's just not the common usage of the term.  Any in speaking with them my recognition of coffee as also a soup is beneficial to understanding what they are saying.The question I would ask is why would we feel entitled to tell that Japanese student that their language is wrong and coffee is not also a soup or sauce.  What you seem to be telling me is there's an entire country that recognizes the similarities of soup, sauce, and juice but it's wrong for me to agree with them because that's not how you see it here?We cannot agree that language is usage when language is also defined.  We learn the language and use the language from those definitions.</blockquote>

Verification