Comment by johnisgood 4 days ago
I would not say "unambiguously" when it comes to natural languages.
And no, "America" may have referred to the US when I was a kid and here in Central Europe we had Back to the Future type of shoes with the American flag, yeah, and I would not say unambiguously so.
If someone says "America" to refer to a place, they really ought to specify if they want you to understand them.
But America isn't a place. There's the Americas, as in plural, referring to the continents of North America and South America.
So America is unassigned, hence why we assigned it to the USA colloquially.
Just for the sake of it I checked Wikipedia.
> The Americas, sometimes collectively called America, are a landmass comprising the totality of North America and South America. When viewed as a single continent, the Americas are the 2nd largest continent by area after Asia, and is the 3rd largest continent by population. The Americas make up most of the land in Earth's Western Hemisphere and constitute the New World.
Yeah, OK, not sure "America" refers to The Oh-So-Great United of America according to this. Guess what? You can find 10 in each direction. Specify. If you disagree with "one should specify", why down-vote? Baffling, baffling indeed.
This wikipedia excerpt aligns exactly with what I said.
There's North and South America. These, together, are the Americas.
America is not that typically. Which makes sense, America is singular. But the Americas are two. So which one are we referring to?
Because if we say both, then the correct term is Americas. If we say just one, then it's North America or South America.
> why down-vote? Baffling
It’s a silly side discussion in which nothing new is being said. Complaining that America generally refers to the country is a hobby for some folks, and that’s fine, but it’s only entertaining for them.
If someone needs the America you’re talking about specified, i.e. they can’t figure it out from context, the discussion is sort of moot. (Same way one can use the word Europe despite it being incredibly ambiguous. Overspecificity comes at the cost of conciseness.)
> Overspecificity comes at the cost of conciseness.
And this is why we have (programming) language wars. Ada or Forth?! :P
I keep getting down-voted, but I have never been against being specific, in fact, I was advocating to be specific[1], i.e. North American, Latin American, South America, etc.
[1] "If someone says "America" to refer to a place, they really ought to specify if they want you to understand them.".
Additionally, natural languages are inherently ambiguous.
So ugh, I do not think we disagree.
If someone can’t figure out what America I’m referring to when comparing America and China, I’m not sure how much useful conversation is left in them on the topic.
Reading this interchange, I think I'd really enjoy a forum where all the responses a poster thinks they'd want to make in a thread are pre-committed-- but not yet viewable-- when the initial comment is posted. Any consequent responses in that thread are then limited to those that are pre-committed-- e.g., that user can select them from a dropdown-- and the full list of pre-commitments is (eventually?) publicly viewable.
Maybe that doesn't apply to what you're replying to here. But my gut is that anything nested deeper than level 2 on HN is one or more respondents doing low-effort, pedantic heel-digging. (Single exception for any and all of Alan Kay's posts where the references cited are always worth whatever level the nesting is at.)
I can't think of any English speaking countries in central Europe off the top of my head.
"America" is short for "The United States of America" in English. That's its definition. I don't understand how people have difficulty with this concept.