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
“I took a look in the mirror and decided to change my ways.”
“in a mirror” tends to refer most often to actual mirrors that exist in reality, not metaphorically
“I looked into a mirror to fix my eyeliner.”
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Argument from authority
so, this comment…
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:
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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 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?