4 ms·

I think it's time to rethink "lots". If lots of people are using "lot's" as a plural of "lot", then why shouldn't that be valid? Language, after all, is not sta

I think it's time to rethink "lots". If lots of people are using "lot's" as a plural of "lot", then why shouldn't that be valid? Language, after all, is not static and if enough people use a new word or a new construction, the language changes.

jm4 17y ago
We're veering off topic here, but it seems like a legitimate debate. I do believe language should not remain static, but I don't believe that rules should be changed just because enough people are breaking them through ignorance. Also, in this case doing so would introduce an inconsistency that would lead to even more confusion. True, we have many of them already in the English language, but the behavior of the apostrophe is mostly consistent. It indicates possession except when it conflicts with a contraction of the same form, in which case the possessive drops the apostrophe, i.e. "it's" and "its". You could say that the current rule is already inconsistent and confusing, but imagine for a moment that an apostrophe could be used to construct an acceptable plural form and think about this example: "The lot's dimensions are..." Now, "lot's" is both plural and possessive. Is that one lot or multiple lots with the same dimensions? The current rule may not be perfect, but it is clearly less ambiguous than the alternative.
zimbabwe 17y ago
Wow, you got downvoted hard. I disagree with you because in this case, it's a matter of semantic structuring. The language should be free to change, but only when it doesn't conflict with how the language functions. In this case, "lot's" would kill how parts of the language is interpreted, and changing it would offer no clear structuring for the two various "lots" usages. There are some exceptions - I, for instance, don't mind people who use abbreviations like "u" since they make sense contextually, and while something like "lol" is overused I think you could make an argument saying "lol" has become a usable verb or even a noun in the English language ("lolled" is also very fun to say out loud). In your case, however, I've got to disagree, though I don't know why people saw fit to downvote you that hard. Perhaps it's because you opened with a definitive-sounding statement before raising arguments in support, though that seems a bit kneejerk.
- die_sekte 17y ago
  I'm tempted to say that HN is ruled by grammar nazis (or prescriptive linguists, if you prefer) who don't respond particularly well to the fact that language evolves which was what I was trying to say. About the semantic structuring: Valid point, but people (who are ultimately responsible for language change) tend to ignore such things.

jm4 17y ago

We're veering off topic here, but it seems like a legitimate debate. I do believe language should not remain static, but I don't believe that rules should be changed just because enough people are breaking them through ignorance. Also, in this case doing so would introduce an inconsistency that would lead to even more confusion. True, we have many of them already in the English language, but the behavior of the apostrophe is mostly consistent. It indicates possession except when it conflicts with a contraction of the same form, in which case the possessive drops the apostrophe, i.e. "it's" and "its". You could say that the current rule is already inconsistent and confusing, but imagine for a moment that an apostrophe could be used to construct an acceptable plural form and think about this example: "The lot's dimensions are..." Now, "lot's" is both plural and possessive. Is that one lot or multiple lots with the same dimensions? The current rule may not be perfect, but it is clearly less ambiguous than the alternative.

zimbabwe 17y ago

Wow, you got downvoted hard. I disagree with you because in this case, it's a matter of semantic structuring. The language should be free to change, but only when it doesn't conflict with how the language functions. In this case, "lot's" would kill how parts of the language is interpreted, and changing it would offer no clear structuring for the two various "lots" usages. There are some exceptions - I, for instance, don't mind people who use abbreviations like "u" since they make sense contextually, and while something like "lol" is overused I think you could make an argument saying "lol" has become a usable verb or even a noun in the English language ("lolled" is also very fun to say out loud). In your case, however, I've got to disagree, though I don't know why people saw fit to downvote you that hard. Perhaps it's because you opened with a definitive-sounding statement before raising arguments in support, though that seems a bit kneejerk.

die_sekte 17y ago
I'm tempted to say that HN is ruled by grammar nazis (or prescriptive linguists, if you prefer) who don't respond particularly well to the fact that language evolves which was what I was trying to say. About the semantic structuring: Valid point, but people (who are ultimately responsible for language change) tend to ignore such things.