Several competitors on the Scottish island of Easdale used stones that were ground down to be perfectly circular.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/35985472

Ooft, the prize is literally just a trophy, why would you cheat this? Skimming takes skill, but to win you surely need a healthy dose of luck too. Anyway, Easdale looks a fun place to visit

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      3·
      4 hours ago

      Aside from that this article only comes to the conclusion of broad implications and the author himself says he used both interchangeably in his book, this is an American source and the headline for this post is British. I don’t know about American Engkish, but there is no expectation of a stone being worked by humans in British English. In common usage here a rock is generally bigger than a stone - I’d say whether you can throw it one-handed is roughly where the extremely fuzzy line is - but you could absolutely just pick up any small piece of stone from the ground in nature and call it “a stone” without anyone questioning it

      • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        1·
        3 hours ago

        Yea, it’s nonsense to say “stone” means worked by human hands.

        Here’s what Dictionary.com has to say:

        the hard substance, formed of mineral matter, of which rocks consist.

        a rock or particular piece or kind of rock, as a boulder or piece of agate.

        a piece of rock quarried and worked into a specific size and shape for a particular purpose: building stone.

        The etymology of stone indicates same:

        stone(n.) “discrete piece of rock,” especially not a large one, Old English stan, which was used of common rocks, precious gems, concretions in the body, memorial stones, from Proto-Germanic *stainaz (source also of Old Norse steinn, Danish steen, Old Saxon sten, Old Frisian sten, Dutch steen, Old High German stein, German Stein, Gothic stains).

        Anecdotal: I’ve never once heard anyone, ever, make this distinction. Stone and rock are synonymous.