Y’all love an argument from etymology when it’s something you have an ideological interest in. Otherwise, of course, you’re all “it doesn’t matter what it used to mean - language usage changes literally everyday bro so you should use it the way I want you to”.
Is it an argument from etymology to say “this has been called milk for hundreds of years and continues to be called milk so it is reasonable to call it milk”
see, the problem with this is that no person on earth calls it “oat drink” or whatever. Oat milk is the accepted term. The etymology is only there to highlight how ridiculous the entire thing is.
Not only that, but even in 1755, plant milks were already in the dictionary
Emulsion made by contusion of seeds.
Pistachoes, so they be good and not musty, joined with almonds in almond milk, or made into a milk of themselves, like unto almond milk, are an excellent nourisher.
Uh the UK supreme court also prohibited Oatly from even using “post-milk generation” as a slogan. It’s 100% dairy industry pressure because they hate competition rather than because they actually care about labeling
I care about labeling though, and I can overall be very happy with the overall effects of the ruling while also disagreeing with the specifics or even the reason the change happened.
[This case] “etymology shows this usage of the word is acceptable”
[Typically] “language change shows the usage of that other word is also acceptable”
IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).
I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if $vegetable milk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.
“Language changes unless my favored language authority says it doesn’t.” I honestly do not understand how you could take a perscriptive stance in FAVOR of language changes. It’s pretty much like looking at 1984 and saying “yes, this is the correct way of language evolution.”
That’s exactly what’s wrong with this post - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
Edit in response to your edit: you have no idea what my stance is, because I haven’t stated one other than “y’all are hypocrites”.
Completely aside from the post, as a linguist my stance is always “language always changes, and meaning is determined by usage”, because both of those positions are demonstrably correct.
This post is prescriptive based on etymology. You’re being prescriptive based on regulation. You’re not making a descriptive argument that would be strong in this case(but wrong because casual usage DOES include plant milk so that’s why I don’t think you’re doing it). You’re making a fucking bizzaro world argument.
Uh huh. So your argument is you secretly don’t have one but are pointing in the general direction that maybe there’s an argument somewhere here and it’s right.
No, I made the argument quite explicit. Since it still seems to have gone over your head somehow, I’ll simplify it here:
“Y’all hate etymological arguments right up to the point that they appear to support your position, and then suddenly you’re in love with them. That makes y’all hypocrites.”
That’s all. That’s my argument. You’re correct that it’s right, of course.
Y’all love an argument from etymology when it’s something you have an ideological interest in. Otherwise, of course, you’re all “it doesn’t matter what it used to mean - language usage changes literally everyday bro so you should use it the way I want you to”.
Is it an argument from etymology to say “this has been called milk for hundreds of years and continues to be called milk so it is reasonable to call it milk”
Ir is it just descriptivism?
see, the problem with this is that no person on earth calls it “oat drink” or whatever. Oat milk is the accepted term. The etymology is only there to highlight how ridiculous the entire thing is.
I make a point to call it “oat juice” specifically because it’s not milk.
It’s okay to be wrong.
Not only that, but even in 1755, plant milks were already in the dictionary
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary, 1775
I suppose so, if even the dictionary is fine with being wrong. Luckily the UK and Germany have fixed this - here’s hoping for the US next!
Uh the UK supreme court also prohibited Oatly from even using “post-milk generation” as a slogan. It’s 100% dairy industry pressure because they hate competition rather than because they actually care about labeling
I care about labeling though, and I can overall be very happy with the overall effects of the ruling while also disagreeing with the specifics or even the reason the change happened.
It’s more like
IMO they’re both poor grounds to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage. But they don’t really contradict each other; in fact they’re both the same fallacy (fallacy of origins aka genetic fallacy).
I believe a better way to defend the acceptability of a certain word usage is to highlight language is a communication system; the point is not to use this or that word, it’s to convey meaning. So if
$vegetablemilk conveys the meaning, it’s fine; if “skibidi” also conveys meaning, it’s also fine.Just my two cents.
when do “we all” love arguments from etymology? can u give an example?
I love when people mark themselves out for blocking.
That works for the plant milk folk here. “Language changes literally everyday bro” arguments fall apart pretty quick:
“Milk changed back to include plants, bro.”
Not according to the UK. Also, thanks for proving my point.
“Language changes unless my favored language authority says it doesn’t.” I honestly do not understand how you could take a perscriptive stance in FAVOR of language changes. It’s pretty much like looking at 1984 and saying “yes, this is the correct way of language evolution.”
That’s exactly what’s wrong with this post - thanks for putting it so succinctly.
Edit in response to your edit: you have no idea what my stance is, because I haven’t stated one other than “y’all are hypocrites”.
Completely aside from the post, as a linguist my stance is always “language always changes, and meaning is determined by usage”, because both of those positions are demonstrably correct.
This post is prescriptive based on etymology. You’re being prescriptive based on regulation. You’re not making a descriptive argument that would be strong in this case(but wrong because casual usage DOES include plant milk so that’s why I don’t think you’re doing it). You’re making a fucking bizzaro world argument.
Make sure to check out my edit in response to your edit.
Uh huh. So your argument is you secretly don’t have one but are pointing in the general direction that maybe there’s an argument somewhere here and it’s right.
No, I made the argument quite explicit. Since it still seems to have gone over your head somehow, I’ll simplify it here:
“Y’all hate etymological arguments right up to the point that they appear to support your position, and then suddenly you’re in love with them. That makes y’all hypocrites.”
That’s all. That’s my argument. You’re correct that it’s right, of course.