3 ms·

> It's not. And I'm not even a native speaker :) https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/learning https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari

> It's not. And I'm not even a native speaker :) https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/learning https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

nottorp 3y ago
You may notice the examples use it totally differently. Just because a word is in the dictionary it doesn't mean you can just drop it anywhere in a phrase. Languages tend to have more rules than that.
- surfpel 3y ago
  > use it totally differently Nope, sorry. Same usage. Read until the end. It’s respectable to have a little humility in the face of contradictory evidence :) > Languages tend to have more rules than that This is a common misconception about language - to think that it has many strict rules. It’s a frankly elitist take and Chomsky, the most prominent contemporary linguist, disagrees. See my other comment for a talk by Chomsky to develop a better understanding of language
  - nottorp 3y ago
    You people also think borrow and lend are interchangeable, for example? If/when you write documentation/work communication, you just throw words in and don't wonder if anyone will understand you?
    - lolc 3y ago
      Did you have any trouble at all reading the original comment?
      - nottorp 3y ago
        This subthread has nothing to do with the original comment. It seems to be an argument that we should use words as we damn well please instead of having a common standard that would allow us to understand each other.
        surfpel 3y ago
        > an argument that we should use words as we damn well please instead of having a common standard that would allow us to understand each other Bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? Every single person has a language that’s unique to them, and there’s a tremendous amount of both redundancy and context, cultural and situational, that need to exist to convey meaning. Obviously increasing deviation from the “standard” lexicon or “laws” of universal grammar would at some point fail to convey any meaning whatsoever, but given the context of this discussion, we’re not discussing egregious violations - merely creative and valid use of existing words which, if you read the other comments, is already standard in industry. My role frequently requires me to explain nuanced technical details to less technical folks or those with differing technical expertise. Even in the same building, between native English speaking coworkers using language in a fully “standard” way, when sharing ideas, there needs to be a back and forth discussion to reduce ambiguity and converge into a commonly held mental abstraction for whatever it is being discussed. Don’t believe me? Why do you think legalese exists? Legalese should be the culmination of precision in conveying meaning, but even with legalese, it’s up to the value systems and judgements of courts and judges to interpret the law. Language is complicated. Try not to be too uptight about it. Have a beer. Relax.
        yreg 3y ago
        > It seems to be an argument that we should That's just you changing the topic and flamebaiting into arguing about grammar. The matter is that OP hasn't made any great mistake (or any mistake, I believe) by saying 'learnings'. It was unnecessary and off topic to correct them. This should have ended there.

> It's not. And I'm not even a native speaker :) https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/learning https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

nottorp 3y ago

You may notice the examples use it totally differently. Just because a word is in the dictionary it doesn't mean you can just drop it anywhere in a phrase. Languages tend to have more rules than that.

surfpel 3y ago
> use it totally differently Nope, sorry. Same usage. Read until the end. It’s respectable to have a little humility in the face of contradictory evidence :) > Languages tend to have more rules than that This is a common misconception about language - to think that it has many strict rules. It’s a frankly elitist take and Chomsky, the most prominent contemporary linguist, disagrees. See my other comment for a talk by Chomsky to develop a better understanding of language
- nottorp 3y ago
  You people also think borrow and lend are interchangeable, for example? If/when you write documentation/work communication, you just throw words in and don't wonder if anyone will understand you?
  - lolc 3y ago
    Did you have any trouble at all reading the original comment?
    - nottorp 3y ago
      This subthread has nothing to do with the original comment. It seems to be an argument that we should use words as we damn well please instead of having a common standard that would allow us to understand each other.
      - surfpel 3y ago
        > an argument that we should use words as we damn well please instead of having a common standard that would allow us to understand each other Bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? Every single person has a language that’s unique to them, and there’s a tremendous amount of both redundancy and context, cultural and situational, that need to exist to convey meaning. Obviously increasing deviation from the “standard” lexicon or “laws” of universal grammar would at some point fail to convey any meaning whatsoever, but given the context of this discussion, we’re not discussing egregious violations - merely creative and valid use of existing words which, if you read the other comments, is already standard in industry. My role frequently requires me to explain nuanced technical details to less technical folks or those with differing technical expertise. Even in the same building, between native English speaking coworkers using language in a fully “standard” way, when sharing ideas, there needs to be a back and forth discussion to reduce ambiguity and converge into a commonly held mental abstraction for whatever it is being discussed. Don’t believe me? Why do you think legalese exists? Legalese should be the culmination of precision in conveying meaning, but even with legalese, it’s up to the value systems and judgements of courts and judges to interpret the law. Language is complicated. Try not to be too uptight about it. Have a beer. Relax.
      - yreg 3y ago
        > It seems to be an argument that we should That's just you changing the topic and flamebaiting into arguing about grammar. The matter is that OP hasn't made any great mistake (or any mistake, I believe) by saying 'learnings'. It was unnecessary and off topic to correct them. This should have ended there.