Pre-Order Thread

Indymisanthrope said:
Vinyl can be a noun, sure, but it’s not a noun that inherently refers to a discrete unit like an LP. It’s a material, like leather. One can own multiple leather jackets, or “a bunch of leather,” but you wouldn’t normally say that person has a big collection of leathers.

Now if you went to an auto factory floor and they said “In this room we manufacture a variety of seat vinyls and next door is where we stitch leathers for steering wheels,” that would be fine, because I’m that case you’re pluralizing the word to indicate differences in the material itself.

Language is always evolving and gatekeeping is dumb, but IMO the reason people disagree over this is oversimplified by focusing on whether “vinyls” is even a word. Just because it’s a word doesn’t mean it’s applicable in all instances.
Click to expand...

In the case of the example, this so called grammar export says it's a noun. "Vinyls" is being used in place of the word "Records".
 
RenegadeMonster said:
In the case of the example, this so called grammar export says it's a noun. "Vinyls" is being used in place of the word "Records".
Click to expand...
It’s essentially a colloquial abbreviation for vinyl records or vinyl albums. It’s similar to “Runs Batted In” being abbreviated to RBI in baseball vernacular. Sure people say RBI’s and ultimately that is fine but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. When you say RBI’s your are essentially saying Runs Batted In’s. The word is already plural… and sure, The underlying meaning of words evolve with society but that doesn’t make it any less awkward. If you are a 13 year old kid posting about your new vinyls on TikTok that’s understandable but If you are a multi-billion dollar record label attempting to sell a status/luxury item for an exorbitant amount of money using “vinyls” seems like a poor choice for someone you’d hope would know better.
 
Last edited:
LeSamourai said:
The vinylz vs vinyl debate from a linguistic perspective:

Language Log » Peeve emergence: The case of "vinyls"

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu

Basically, it's an example of "countification," something that's happened to lots of words over the years.
Click to expand...
People get the meaning “wrong” so much it becomes acceptable. The same thing has happened to “literally”. So many people used it as a point of emphasis to describe a figurative hyperbole that the word now has multiple meanings.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
People get the meaning “wrong” so much it becomes acceptable. The same thing has happened to “literally”. So many people used it as a point of emphasis to describe a figurative hyperbole that the word now has multiple meanings.
Click to expand...

Literally- not actually literal since 1769.

Or like how we now mainly apply awesome to things that mostly do not fill us with awe.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
People get the meaning “wrong” so much it becomes acceptable. The same thing has happened to “literally”. So many people used it as a point of emphasis to describe a figurative hyperbole that the word now has multiple meanings.
Click to expand...

As annoying as it may or may not be to live through the point in time where that happens to a particular word that is also a fact of language. It’s a live medium that rejects stasis always in a state of change. The way we speak now has little relation to how we spoke even 50 or 60 years ago and with worldwide, rather than national or even only local, communication that’s only going to accelerate. Embrace the chaos! Or you could go back and learn old Norse or something.
 
Joe Mac said:
As annoying as it may or may not be to live through the point in time where that happens to a particular word that is also a fact of language. It’s a live medium that rejects stasis always in a state of change. The way we speak now has little relation to how we spoke even 50 or 60 years ago and with worldwide, rather than national or even only local, communication that’s only going to accelerate. Embrace the chaos! Or you could go back and learn old Norse or something.
Click to expand...
I’m not complaining. I find linguistics and etymology quite interesting enough so that I’ve read a few really entertaining books by Mark Forsyth on the subject.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I’m not complaining. I find linguistics and etymology quite interesting enough so that I’ve read a few really entertaining books by Mark Forsyth on the subject.
Click to expand...

Yeah me neither. The only thing that i don’t like is the homogenisation of language and culture. I love the quite stark differences that you get in even small countries and it does feel like that’s slowly dying right now.
 
Joe Mac said:
As annoying as it may or may not be to live through the point in time where that happens to a particular word that is also a fact of language. It’s a live medium that rejects stasis always in a state of change. The way we speak now has little relation to how we spoke even 50 or 60 years ago and with worldwide, rather than national or even only local, communication that’s only going to accelerate. Embrace the chaos! Or you could go back and learn old Norse or something.
Click to expand...
I know there are plenty of people here who can relate, but I definitely did not speak at all 50 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top