I have to say that I’m guilty of such pedantry (playfully, in my mind. perhaps not to the recipient, and I’ll examine more closely next time it comes up), especially to break the ice when I don’t think the reasonable but non-compliant response will be well-received.
I do think that language and communication _is_ personal and idiosyncratic, and a demand that I provide a single word for a concept that can be used in other contexts is somewhere between onerous and just unlikely. Clarification using many words is often perfectly reasonable. If you also want to agree that “in this context only, X is shorthand for ‘the thing we’ve just spent 3 minutes defining’”, that can make some further conversations easier.
I fully share and support at least one motivation behind this peeve: spending time arguing about definitions should take up very little of your cruxing effort. Agree on concepts, then identify the actual disagreements.
I have to say that I’m guilty of such pedantry (playfully, in my mind. perhaps not to the recipient, and I’ll examine more closely next time it comes up), especially to break the ice when I don’t think the reasonable but non-compliant response will be well-received.
I do think that language and communication _is_ personal and idiosyncratic, and a demand that I provide a single word for a concept that can be used in other contexts is somewhere between onerous and just unlikely. Clarification using many words is often perfectly reasonable. If you also want to agree that “in this context only, X is shorthand for ‘the thing we’ve just spent 3 minutes defining’”, that can make some further conversations easier.
I fully share and support at least one motivation behind this peeve: spending time arguing about definitions should take up very little of your cruxing effort. Agree on concepts, then identify the actual disagreements.