[ SECRET POST #1876 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1876 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 095 secrets from Secret Submission Post #268.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 3 4 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ascend.livejournal.com]

ok cool but all three terms are still correct

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

Except context and connotation are a thing. Contextually (in this case, in discussions of reproductive rights), "babies/children" more accurately refers to post-birth humans.

[ascend.livejournal.com]

accuracy is not equatable with correctness here

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

Since this discussion started with dictionary definitions, let's take it back there.

accuracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuracy), n.: the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.

[ascend.livejournal.com]

ok cool so you know how to use the internet

from merriam-webster: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accuracy)

1: freedom from mistake or error : correctness
2
a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness
b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision 2a

so here's a basic lesson - most words have several different meanings. from your very own source:

child
noun, plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.

this argument is petty and nonsensical; it only stems from qualms with appeals to emotion, but yall have to realise that a number of terms can fall under this category - anything from baby to cluster of cells. but regardless of how emotionally charged these words might be, they're still correct, even if you don't like them. i brought this up initially because the above anon brought it upon themselves to chide somebody else for their terminology, implying it was incorrect, when in fact it isn't.

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

Yes, many words have different meanings and shades of nuance, which is why it's important to consider context and connotation when using them. In the context of a discussion about reproductive rights, it is more correct to refer to a pre-birth human as a fetus, embryo, or zygote, depending on its stage of development, and reserve the term "child" for post-birth humans. In a different context, like at a baby shower, it is perfectly logical and accurate to refer to a pre-birth human as a "baby" or a "child." Because words mean different things in different contexts -- and in the context we're talking about, your Definition 1 quoted above ("a person between birth and full growth") is the correct one.

[ascend.livejournal.com]

i am not arguing the degree to which it is correct; i am fully aware that calling a foetus a baby or a child is more or less an emotional appeal rather than a neutral one (regardless of context, actually). i don't know how much clearer i can be when i state that i was merely arguing against the notion that child/baby are incorrect completely, because they're not - even in this context. the physical condition of the foetus doesn't rely on the setting to change. whether you are standing in the presence of a baby shower or in the presence of an abortion clinic, the foetus is still the same thing. you can call it as you wish and you'd still be right in doing so, even if it seems emotionally misplaced.

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

So there's no such thing as context, or context doesn't affect the meaning of words in any way?

[ascend.livejournal.com]

ok lets be real, you know i'm not implying that. this is a logical fallacy. there's no way i would have brought up context in my last reply to begin with if i thought it was bogus. but context here doesn't change whether or not any of the mentioned terms for foetus are correct, it just changes their social accuracy, if you will.

you've mentioned that child/baby are both less correct and incorrect in this context, so i'm not sure if you're being consistent here. let me ask you - do you think calling a foetus a baby or a child in this context is linguistically wrong, or just less accurate than foetus?

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think it's not even really that correct in a baby-shower context, but I handwave that because people are talking about the child it's going to be, or speaking in an almost metaphorical sense because of the emotions involved in the anticipation of a wanted baby. But that's a context where technical accuracy about prenatal development isn't really relevant.

In a discussion of reproductive rights, technical accuracy about prenatal development is relevant, and there are specific periods of time when the organism in question is a zygote, when it's an embryo, when it's a fetus, and when it's a baby. If the purpose of language is to make oneself understood, then conflating these stages is incorrect, because it obscures understanding and removes clarity.

[ascend.livejournal.com]

so you are basically disagreeing with the english language, ok

just wanted to clear that up

[tigerdreams.livejournal.com]

Yeah, except for how no. Hint: the dictionary is a reflection of common usage, not a how-to manual.

I never understood why prescriptivists were annoying until now. Thanks!

[ascend.livejournal.com]

as if you aren't clinging to prescriptivism yourself ???

p.s. common usage typically denotes what is and is not linguistically acceptable, however improper or nonstandard it may be.

[hihotiho.livejournal.com]

Merriam-Webster. Oh.

Let me give you a definition of 'fetus' from a marginally more authoritative source, namely a biology textbook:

"Medical and legal term for the stages of a developing human embryo from about the eight week of pregnancy (the point at which all major organ systems have formed) to the moment of birth."

[hihotiho.livejournal.com]

*eighth

[ascend.livejournal.com]

lmfao what is wrong with merriam-webster, are you being for real