Discussion History Main / Canon

I\'d like to discuss this large batch of text in this article\'s description:

* It must be noted that \"canon\" is a term misused even more often than the notorious \"Egregious,\" as seen in the page quote above. Many people mistakenly use \"canon\" and \"non-canon\" when they mean \"canonical\" and \"non-canonical\" (if using it as an adjective) or \"canon\" when they mean \"canonicity\" (if using it as a collective noun). \"Canon\" is a singular noun that refers to the official story of a work (typically according to the writers of said work) and must either come after a singular specifying article (such as \"the\" or \"a\") or have an \"s\" applied to the end of the word when referring to more than one individual canon. \"Canonicity\" is the collective noun form and is the correct word to use when referring to the idea of canonical or non-canonical things in general, which should be used any time you want to use the word \"canon\" without preceding it with a singular specifying article. \"Canonical\" is the adjective form describing something that is or isn\'t part of the canon in question.\\\\
The correct terminology can be most easily exhibited with these three sentences: \"Let\'s discuss canonicity. Because this particular detail is canonical, it fits within established canonicity and therefore is part of the official canon. However, because this other conflicting detail does not fit into canonicity, it\'s clearly non-canonical and does not belong in the canon.\" If you\'re still confused, a simple way to remember how to use these words properly is to compare \"canon\" to \"continuation,\" \"canonical\" to \"continual,\" and \"canonicity\" to \"continuity.\"

To be blunt, I\'m not convinced any of this is actually true. Sure, it\'s absolutely true when discussing biblical canon, but the word is used so differently in regard to fiction that it\'s basically a homonym and ought to be treated differently.

Thus we come to the endless debate surrounding the English language: how much must \"incorrect\" word usage be used before it becomes correct? Personally, I believe \"canon\" has long since passed that point. If that big block of text is to be believed, \"non-canon\" is not a word and should never be used. \'\'\'This is complete nonsense.\'\'\' If literally everyone uses the word that way, then that is a correct use of the word.

I\'m not at all saying that the article should be rewritten (the current use of \"canonicity\", \"canonical\", etc. is all correct usage too), but I do think that there\'s no need to include a big grammar lesson in the middle of the page that\'s debatably even correct in the first place. I\'d like to cut these paragraphs.

I\'d like to discuss this large batch of text in this article\'s description:

* It must be noted that \"canon\" is a term misused even more often than the notorious \"Egregious,\" as seen in the page quote above. Many people mistakenly use \"canon\" and \"non-canon\" when they mean \"canonical\" and \"non-canonical\" (if using it as an adjective) or \"canon\" when they mean \"canonicity\" (if using it as a collective noun). \"Canon\" is a singular noun that refers to the official story of a work (typically according to the writers of said work) and must either come after a singular specifying article (such as \"the\" or \"a\") or have an \"s\" applied to the end of the word when referring to more than one individual canon. \"Canonicity\" is the collective noun form and is the correct word to use when referring to the idea of canonical or non-canonical things in general, which should be used any time you want to use the word \"canon\" without preceding it with a singular specifying article. \"Canonical\" is the adjective form describing something that is or isn\'t part of the canon in question.\\
The correct terminology can be most easily exhibited with these three sentences: \"Let\'s discuss canonicity. Because this particular detail is canonical, it fits within established canonicity and therefore is part of the official canon. However, because this other conflicting detail does not fit into canonicity, it\'s clearly non-canonical and does not belong in the canon.\" If you\'re still confused, a simple way to remember how to use these words properly is to compare \"canon\" to \"continuation,\" \"canonical\" to \"continual,\" and \"canonicity\" to \"continuity.\"

To be blunt, I\'m not convinced any of this is actually true. Sure, it\'s absolutely true when discussing biblical canon, but the word is used so differently in regard to fiction that it\'s basically a homonym and ought to be treated differently.

Thus we come to the endless debate surrounding the English language: how much must \"incorrect\" word usage be used before it becomes correct? Personally, I believe \"canon\" has long since passed that point. If that big block of text is to be believed, \"non-canon\" is not a word and should never be used. \'\'\'This is complete nonsense.\'\'\' If literally everyone uses the word that way, then that is a correct use of the word.

I\'m not at all saying that the article should be rewritten (the current use of \"canonicity\", \"canonical\", etc. is all correct usage too), but I do think that there\'s no need to include a big grammar lesson in the middle of the page that\'s debatably even correct in the first place. I\'d like to cut these paragraphs.

I\'d like to discuss this large batch of text in this article\'s description:

* It must be noted that \"canon\" is a term misused even more often than the notorious \"Egregious,\" as seen in the page quote above. Many people mistakenly use \"canon\" and \"non-canon\" when they mean \"canonical\" and \"non-canonical\" (if using it as an adjective) or \"canon\" when they mean \"canonicity\" (if using it as a collective noun). \"Canon\" is a singular noun that refers to the official story of a work (typically according to the writers of said work) and must either come after a singular specifying article (such as \"the\" or \"a\") or have an \"s\" applied to the end of the word when referring to more than one individual canon. \"Canonicity\" is the collective noun form and is the correct word to use when referring to the idea of canonical or non-canonical things in general, which should be used any time you want to use the word \"canon\" without preceding it with a singular specifying article. \"Canonical\" is the adjective form describing something that is or isn\'t part of the canon in question.\\\\
The correct terminology can be most easily exhibited with these three sentences: \"Let\'s discuss canonicity. Because this particular detail is canonical, it fits within established canonicity and therefore is part of the official canon. However, because this other conflicting detail does not fit into canonicity, it\'s clearly non-canonical and does not belong in the canon.\" If you\'re still confused, a simple way to remember how to use these words properly is to compare \"canon\" to \"continuation,\" \"canonical\" to \"continual,\" and \"canonicity\" to \"continuity.\"

To be blunt, I\'m not convinced any of this is actually true. Sure, it\'s absolutely true when discussing biblical canon, but the word is used so differently in regard to fiction that it\'s basically a homonym and ought to be treated differently.

Thus we come to the endless debate surrounding the English language: how much must \"incorrect\" word usage be used before it becomes correct? Personally, I believe \"canon\" has long since passed that point. If that big block of text is to be believed, \"non-canon\" is not a word and should never be used. \'\'\'This is complete nonsense.\'\'\' If literally everyone uses the word that way, then that is a correct usage of the word.

I\'m not at all saying that the article should be rewritten (the current use of \"canonicity\", \"canonical\", etc. is all correct usage too), but I do think that there\'s no need to include a big grammar lesson in the middle of the page that\'s debatably even correct in the first place. I\'d like to cut these paragraphs.

Fine then, I\'m movie them you White Man\'s burden.