!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
English teacher here. Articles in English can be really confusing but essentially we use the definite article in this situation because:
Tell me you haven't read Jonathan Strange without telling me you haven't read Jonathan Strange 😏 obviously it's because all mirrors are connected - as entrances to the King's Way of old.
Ukrainian here. IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :) no offense to you personally, of course. I understand the whole concept of articles in English and know (at least I thought I knew before this post) their correct usage, and in all use cases I can remember the article uses are logically acceptable for a foreigner, but this one with the mirror and the bathroom is messed up a bit :)
IMO, the first statement is half-stupid, the second one is half-overcomplicated :)
Welcome to English, my friend. No one ever claimed that it wasn't a pain in the arse to learn :)
:) no, it's not, because for people to understand you you don't need to grasp 75% of the concepts of the English language, and IMO, this is the measure of "pain in the ass" of a language. so still not even half as complicated as Ukrainian and not even half a pain in the ass as Ukrainian :)
The second example is quite good imo. You would never say “I’m going to a bathroom.” Even if you were in a stadium with hundreds of bathrooms, you would still say you are going to the bathroom.
Same as you might say I’m taking the train. Not usually taking a train, though I’ve heard that too sometimes. Though oddly you usually say I’m taking a plane, not the plane. Also I’m taking the freeway, not a freeway. I’m usually going to the doctor, less often than a doctor.
The second example is quite good imo. You would never say “I’m going to a bathroom.” Even if you were in a stadium with hundreds of bathrooms, you would still say you are going to the bathroom.
you are justifying this statement "because of reasons" :) this is not a logical explanation. there are a bunch of bathrooms in the world. Am I going to the one specific that was mentioned before in the context? then it's "to the bathroom". is this bathroom just a random one that I will encounter on my way? then why not "to a bathroom"?
same with trains: even if you are speaking about a train route with a specific number, you are not talking about a specific train, then it should be "I'll be taking a train". if you are going to take the specific locomotive for a ride in a museum, then, obviously, you are going to take "the train". this sounds logical for the usage of Articles in the English language, at least in my head.
same with doctors: if you are going to a specific doctor, and your opponent knows which one by the context, then it should be "to the doctor", otherwise it would be a random doctor that will be assigned to you as soon as you arrive to the clinic, it cannot be "the doctor" by the same principle I always thought exists :)
I'm not even talking about the option of using a subject without an article, like in Ukrainian. "I'm going to bathroom". if I wanted to say which one, I would have stated it, but as soon as I am going to pee in a random bathroom I find, why can't it be just "I'm going to bathroom"? :D yeah, now it sounds like a verb :D
whoa, another meaningless "the" appeared. "The English Language" phrasing is used despite there are at least four? five? English languages.
so... it's complicated :D but this does not prevent English from being The Language of the World, and I cannot name a language that could have been on its place.
This is gold! But what I also find confusing is the ultimate difference between Present Perfect and Past Simple...
My autistic ass has always thought of it as "I'm going to the (specific) bathroom (that I will be using)"
in my experience, people use both, but in different contexts.
"in the mirror" tends to more often refer to a metaphorical "mirror", typically when discussing self-reflection
"in a mirror" tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically
I've seen people use each interchangeably, but i would consider that a common mistake of style and form, not as a common valid usage.
A fair guess, but this isn't one of those times when a grammatical error becomes normalized through common usage.
There is no grammar rule that separates speaking literally versus metaphorically in this case.
"You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror" is just as grammatically correct in English as "You need to take a good look in the mirror and change your ways."
I've explained why this is standard usage in English in my comment here.
“You have something on your face; go take a look in the mirror” is just as grammatically correct in English
yes, but only if you're referring to a specific mirror. so, "go look in the mirror" would be appropriate if you're also indicating to/pointing at a mirror, or there's been a specific mirror under discussion already (or if the audience already knew there was only one mirror they could be referring to.)
also, it's not technically a grammatical error, but one of poor style/form.
edit: also, i'm not a fan of the "using the grammar and spelling of a 3 year-old is valid because language is fluid!" argument. bad grammar and poor style/form are just that. just because doing so may be popular doesn't magically make it "valid". to me, that whole argument reeks of, "I'm not wrong for being ignorant, you're wrong for pointing out my mistake-- so it's magically not a mistake anymore so I can avoid acknowledging ever being wrong!"
Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it's standard usage.
In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. "go to the bathroom" or "catch the bus", or "read the newspaper". It's not poor form at all.
Nope, as I explained in my other comment, it’s standard usage.
you explained more or less what i did, except the whole “using the grammar and spelling of a 3 year-old is valid because language is fluid!” BS argument i outright reject--
and your claims of being an English teacher? it bears no weight here.
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.[1]
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy,[2] and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.[3][4]
so, this comment...
In English, we often use the definite article when speaking in general about a specific activity or action that involves a non-specific object. E.g. “go to the bathroom” or “catch the bus”, or “read the newspaper”. It’s not poor form at all.
and if you can't comprehend that this is simply another way of explaining what i did, then i certainly question your claims of being an English teacher.
Lol well teaching this professionally surely makes me some form of authority (albeit of course not the authority!) on this subject.
To clarify, your original point sounded like you were making a distinction between metaphorical mirrors and actual mirrors:
"in the mirror" tends to more often refer to a metaphorical "mirror", typically when discussing self-reflection
"in a mirror" tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically
This incorrect distinction is what I was objecting to, because of course we can use both the indefinite and definite articles to refer to either literal or figurative mirrors.
That's a common mistake, an argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority in the field. Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson on political views is an argument from authority, quoting him on astrophysics is not.
Wrong. Authority is not what makes an argument correct— facts are. And those exist regardless of any claimed authority— therefore, to argue that one’s authority makes them correct is a fallacy, for it is facts and evidence, not authority, from which truth is derived.
If Neil Degrasse Tyson said something that’s incorrect and then claimed he was correct simply because he was a physicist does not make him correct.
Thanks for playing!
The thing is that facts are not as clear cut as you think, that's a very childish vision of the world (to think that it is always possible to differentiate a fact, don't believe me? What am I wearing now? There is a factual answer, but you have no way of knowing it)
Plus if Neil deGrasse Tyson claims something about astrophysics and you claim he's wrong, you better have at least someone as knowledgeable as him in astrophysics to back that claim, otherwise I'm siding with the expert on the matter.
Plus all discussions rely on the backing of experts, otherwise any discussion is impossible, I could just claim your argument is wrong because some word you used means the opposite of what you meant, your only counter argument would be to point to a dictionary, which is by your own definition an appeal to authority fallacy.
Now you’re equivocating and using personal insults.
And there were “experts” who said that COVID vaccine causes autism.
Facts make one correct. Not authority.
I'm not insulting you, but thinking that facts are always knowledgeable is a childish vision of the world.
You put quotes around expert because you know they weren't, actual experts were saying vaccines did not cause autism. Let me ask you then, how do YOU know that vaccines don't cause autism? Because to me the answer is simple, I've listened to the consensus of the experts, but to you that's a fallacy.
Facts are not always knowledgeable, authority in a field gives one credibility over the facts they claim.
I have had people hand me a floppy disk and want me to download the Internet onto it. I have told them that that is impossible but how do they know that I'm telling them the truth?
In languages that distinguish definiteness (e.g. English) usually if you're talking about a "kind of thing", you can use either the definite or indefinite form and make sense. Only if you're talking about a specific thing does the distinction matter: "a mirror" = a mirror I'm now introducing and you don't know about yet, "the mirror" = the mirror we talked about before and you already know about; but either form can mean "mirrors in general". There are slight stylistic differences what's preferred in what contexts depending on the language, but in German too you can say "in den Spiegel schauen".
My assumption would be that it's because we don't really look at mirrors per se but rather the reflection in them, so the definite article is indicating the fungibility of the mirror itself. This total speculation on my part though and I might be totally wrong.
I like this interpretation. Fungible is a great way to describe the function of the physical mirror in the phrasing.
I look in the mirror when I have a specific mirror in mind when I say it. Otherwise it's a mirror.
Maybe there's a cultural idea about mirrors being somehow "the same". After all, a mirror shows the same thing regardless of which one it is. Or related in cultural mythology to a singular adjoining world that contains your doppelganger (in such media, you don't usually have a separate mirror-self for every mirror, but one that can be accessed from any mirror). Also could be a turn of phrase that stuck without a good reason.
Because no matter in what mirror you look, they‘re all the same. That‘s why we say the clock or the calendar. It‘s universal.
how about "going to the doctor"? :D
We say "the doctor" when talking about the concept of a doctor. We tend say "my doctor" and not "the doctor" when talking about what our respective doctor told us. Kind of like how we refer to the clock as "my clock" when we notice a difference to the universally accepted concept.
so "a" is universal for clock, but "the" is universal for doctor :D
Because there's only one mirror world and all mirrors are windows into it.
Yes, that's what I came here to say
We like to think English follows a consistent set of rules.
It doesn't.
I suspect it has to do with being a sort of household appliance. Similar to the fridge, the TV, the bathtub, etc. People think about it in that sense most frequently and it becomes the common parlance.
I can't answer your question. But I'll bet it's the same reason we say we saw something "on the TV."
I feel like that's an elderly thing. Most people cut out the "the"
I'm not a linguist, but here's my guess.
Take these sentences where a similar thing happens.
In these cases, the noun isn't actually that important, more than it is what you're doing with the noun. These nouns represent the general act of doing something, and I guess since that action is a singular specific thing, we use "the".
This applies to "Look in the mirror." The actual mirror doesn't really matter much. The focus is on the general act of looking at your clear reflection.
Do you think maybe 'a mirror' refers to actually visually looking at a mirror and 'the mirror' refers to taking inventory of yourself? Unless there's actually a mirror nearby that you're referring to.
I feel like it has to do with the "mystical" or metaphorical perception of mirrors, especially early on.
Like, as if looking "into a mirror" is analogous to looking "into a (or rather: the) mirror world", if that makes sense.
Kind of the same reason we use the preposition "in" or "into" rather than the more physically correct "at".
Makes sense to me because I'm referring to a specific mirror, the one in my bathroom.
Imo, it's because "the mirror" means "the reflexion in the mirror" you rarely actually look a mirror itself
Mirrors used to be expensive so I imagine it came from a whole family sharing just 1. And perhaps they were not common enough for them to even think about other mirrors. So they would just refer to the singular mirror they had.