Asklemmy

43945 readers

634 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

190

Why in Sci-Fi they always use Marine or Naval terminology and structure instead of Aviation for the spaceship structure, navigation and military ranks? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 9 months ago by vis4valentine@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I don't really know how to structure this question, but yeah, why is always Naval and never Aviation?

(page 2) 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago

In addition to all the other reasons offered re: functional analogy, many of the aviation terms themselves come from naval / boating / sea-faring. Pilot is a good example, previously having been used in the sense of "riverboat pilot," etc.

[+] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -6 points 8 months ago (4 children)

"Why do they use" is a question. "Why they use" is an explanation.

[–] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 8 months ago

english is a great language with which to get into a habit of saying "according to," or "traditionally," before statements like these.

if "why they use" is understood as a question, then it's functioning as a question. to try to point out a "mistake" in english against some supposed objective or better standard is to fight a classist, sisyphean, and intellectually unrigorous battle against the reality of language in use. spare yourself the frustration.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Downvote all you like, I'm gonna keep correcting people who make this mistake.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I believe you mean, "Even if you, 'down-vote,' my comment, I shall continue to correct people who have made that mistake."

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I meant exactly what I said, and it is grammatically-correct casual English. Unlike 'why in sci-fi they use Navy ranks?' Or any of the hundred other 'how to fix problem?' examples I've seen, over the last decade.

This is a growing error and I am doing the bare minimum to help people stop making it. I'd understand if you find it overly prescriptivist. I'd understand if my phrasing was somehow impolite or unhelpful. But I have nothing kind to say about people mocking the effort.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Don't you know? Correcting someone's grammar or spelling is ableist and you have to just try to understand the fountain of garbage that people spew or you're literally Hitler.

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 1 points 8 months ago

noone likes a grammer nasi

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments