I am talking about none of these things. I am talking about the well-defined, mathematical concept called a disk (or disc). That is, the flat surface bounded by a circle. In the same way that if I was talking about a square in the sense of a shape, I would be talking about the geometric object, not a square as in “town square” (yes they often have four sides too, and no, they’re not always square shaped).
Re disk: I have seen both spellings in the maths literature, I just am not sure whether the distinction is as simple as US vs UK, or if it is more granular (Cambridge vs Oxford for instance), and whether there is also a temporal element to it.
Also, I am sorry that this is now so needlessly pedantic, but it kinda sorta proves my point. We don’t need all that to agree that pizzas are circle shaped, and I would not actually have corrected you and said “no, they are a disk!”. All of that is pseudo-intellectual wank in the context of talking about pizzas.
EDIT re your “round” shadow edit. Well now you’re just deliberately missing the point. Have a good day.
I understand that civilians are under no obligation to follow the rules of language, but writers should be striving for precision in their language. Impressionism doesn’t really work for literature. You can’t be blurry.
From the perspective of a person who relies on specific language in their sector, like music or science or auto mechanics, seeing a word that has a specific, precise definition that we rely on to communicate within that world, being used incorrectly, doesn’t just muddy the writer’s narrative and meaning, it compromises the writer’s integrity, and questions their competence. They are writers, shouldn’t they know the precise meanings of every single word they use, and use it in the proper context?
A good musician knows every single note they are playing, and that note’s context within the harmonic and formal structure of the work they are playing. Even a single wrong note is absolutely unacceptable. If a musician played with the same acceptance of imprecision that this thread is suggesting is okay for writers, they would never be considered a competent musician.
There is no problem with a writers using specific jargon to elevate their prose, but they have an obligation to use those terms precisely. Otherwise, just make up your own words. Stop fucking up everybody else’s, especially those that require precise meanings in their original, normal use.
I understand that civilians are under no obligation to follow the rules of language, but writers should be striving for precision in their language. Impressionism doesn’t really work for literature. You can’t be blurry.
Won’t read the rest, this is enough for me to understand you’re now either arguing in bad faith, or are ignorant of how language evolves. Is English you first language? Look up the contributions of Shakespeare to the language. Are you Italian, like “piccolo” could suggest? Look at Dante Alighieri.
Your language would be different without the freedom that writers take over the ages, and for one thing you’re unhappy about, there are a myriad you don’t even think twice about, and hopefully, quite a few metaphorical and poetic idioms that you find beautiful.
The concept that precision in meaning isn’t important to writing is silly. Literary license is one thing, but using words that are flatly wrong and then demanding they be accepted is nonsense.
Would you be so understanding if some artists wanted to start labelling the color red as blue, because they feel like it, and they don’t care how confusing it is, or how dumb it makes them look?
Or if musicians started playing random accidentals in their Bach performances, because they don’t feel it’s important to alter keys at their whim?
Or if musicians started playing random accidentals in their Bach performances, because they don’t feel it’s important to alter keys at their whim?
That would be the equivalent of a writer inserting bacon random words.
The musical equivalent would be a musician making a deliberate choice to alter the performance because they like how it changes the piece. I would be perfectly fine with that.
I am talking about none of these things. I am talking about the well-defined, mathematical concept called a disk (or disc). That is, the flat surface bounded by a circle. In the same way that if I was talking about a square in the sense of a shape, I would be talking about the geometric object, not a square as in “town square” (yes they often have four sides too, and no, they’re not always square shaped).
Re disk: I have seen both spellings in the maths literature, I just am not sure whether the distinction is as simple as US vs UK, or if it is more granular (Cambridge vs Oxford for instance), and whether there is also a temporal element to it.
Also, I am sorry that this is now so needlessly pedantic, but it kinda sorta proves my point. We don’t need all that to agree that pizzas are circle shaped, and I would not actually have corrected you and said “no, they are a disk!”. All of that is pseudo-intellectual wank in the context of talking about pizzas.
EDIT re your “round” shadow edit. Well now you’re just deliberately missing the point. Have a good day.
I understand that civilians are under no obligation to follow the rules of language, but writers should be striving for precision in their language. Impressionism doesn’t really work for literature. You can’t be blurry.
From the perspective of a person who relies on specific language in their sector, like music or science or auto mechanics, seeing a word that has a specific, precise definition that we rely on to communicate within that world, being used incorrectly, doesn’t just muddy the writer’s narrative and meaning, it compromises the writer’s integrity, and questions their competence. They are writers, shouldn’t they know the precise meanings of every single word they use, and use it in the proper context?
A good musician knows every single note they are playing, and that note’s context within the harmonic and formal structure of the work they are playing. Even a single wrong note is absolutely unacceptable. If a musician played with the same acceptance of imprecision that this thread is suggesting is okay for writers, they would never be considered a competent musician.
There is no problem with a writers using specific jargon to elevate their prose, but they have an obligation to use those terms precisely. Otherwise, just make up your own words. Stop fucking up everybody else’s, especially those that require precise meanings in their original, normal use.
Won’t read the rest, this is enough for me to understand you’re now either arguing in bad faith, or are ignorant of how language evolves. Is English you first language? Look up the contributions of Shakespeare to the language. Are you Italian, like “piccolo” could suggest? Look at Dante Alighieri.
Your language would be different without the freedom that writers take over the ages, and for one thing you’re unhappy about, there are a myriad you don’t even think twice about, and hopefully, quite a few metaphorical and poetic idioms that you find beautiful.
I won’t engage further. Have a good day.
The concept that precision in meaning isn’t important to writing is silly. Literary license is one thing, but using words that are flatly wrong and then demanding they be accepted is nonsense.
Would you be so understanding if some artists wanted to start labelling the color red as blue, because they feel like it, and they don’t care how confusing it is, or how dumb it makes them look?
Or if musicians started playing random accidentals in their Bach performances, because they don’t feel it’s important to alter keys at their whim?
That would be the equivalent of a writer inserting bacon random words.
The musical equivalent would be a musician making a deliberate choice to alter the performance because they like how it changes the piece. I would be perfectly fine with that.