4 ms·
I like these examples because they concisely express some of the existing ambiguities in human language. Like, I wouldn’t normally call a desk a chair, but if s
by theptip 4y ago
I like these examples because they concisely express some of the existing ambiguities in human language. Like, I wouldn’t normally call a desk a chair, but if someone is sitting on the table I’m more likely to - in some linguistic contexts.
I think you need LLM plus vision to fully solve this.
- Eisenstein 4y agoI still haven't figured out what the difference is between 'clothes' and 'clothing'. I know there is one, and the words each work in specific contexts ('I put on my clothes' works vs 'I put on my clothing' does not), but I have no idea how to define the difference. Please don't look it up but if you have any thoughts on the matter I welcome them.
- Vecr 4y agoWhat's wrong with "I put on my clothing"? Sounds mostly fine, it's just longer.
- frosted-flakes 4y agoIt's not idiomatic. No one actually says that.
- ghaff 4y agoI wouldn't say that as an absolute statement, but in US English (at least the regional dialects I'm most familiar with), "throw on some clothes," "the clothes I'm wearing," etc. certainly sound more natural.
- yamtaddle 4y agoTo me, "clothing" fits better when it's abstract, bulk, or industrial, "clothes" when it's personal and specific, with grey areas where either's about as good—"I washed my clothes", "I washed my clothing", though even here I think "clothes" works a little better. Meanwhile, "clothing factory" or "clothing retailer" are perfectly natural, even if "clothes" would also be OK there. "I put on my clothing" reads a bit like when business-jargon sneaks into everyday language, like when someone says they "utilized" something (where the situation doesn't technically call for that word, in its traditional sense). It gets the point across but seems a bit off. ... oh shit, I think I just figured out the general guideline: "clothing" feels more correct when it's a supporting part of a noun phrase, not the primary part of a subject or object. "Clothing factory" works well because "clothing" is just the kind of factory. "I put on my nicest clothes" reads better than "I put on my nicest clothing" because clothes/clothing itself is the object.
- alistairSH 4y agoI think your first guess was accurate... clothes is specific garments while clothing is general. The clothes I'm wearing today are not warm enough. [specific pieces being worn] VS Clothing should be appropriate for the weather. [unspecified garments should match the weather]
- Eisenstein 4y agoIt is fascinating to me how we (or at least I) innately understand when the words fit but cannot define why they fit until someone explains it or it gets thought about for a decent period of time. Language and humans are an amazing pair.
- brookst 4y agoThere’s also a formality angle. The police might inspect your clothing, but probably not your clothes.
- Doxin 4y agoI figure it's the same sort of thing as yards vs yardage. When you're talking about yards you're talking about some specific amount, when you're talking yardage you's talking about some unspecified amount that gets measured in yards usually. When talking clothing you're talking about an abstract concept, when you're talking clothes you're generally talking about some fairly specific clothes. There's a lot of grey area here, e.g. a shop can either sell clothes or clothing, either works to my ear.