[002]
Venatius
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I have to admit, I\'ve wondered this for a long time: Why do we have this phrase? The words \
to:
I have to admit, I\\\'ve wondered this for a long time: Why do we have this phrase? The words \\\"moral\\\" (for a story\\\'s intended lesson for the reader) and \\\"fable\\\" (a fantastical story meant to convey a moral - precisely what Aesop was known for) and \\\"parable\\\" (the same thing for non-fantastical) already exist. \\\"An Aesop\\\" is LESS clear, since it could mean a moral, a fable, or a parable. You need context to figure out which. It\\\'s also redundant, since clearer terms already exist. It seems like a lingual construct as pointless as adding \\\"head of\\\" to quantities of cattle.
I\\\'m not trying to agitate for its removal, mind - the term and the article itself are both probably too widely spread to excise. I\\\'m more just looking for justification for the sake of my own peace of mind.
I\\\'m not trying to agitate for its removal, mind - the term and the article itself are both probably too widely spread to excise. I\\\'m more just looking for justification for the sake of my own peace of mind.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I have to admit, I\'ve wondered this for a long time: Why do we have this phrase? The words \
to:
I have to admit, I\\\'ve wondered this for a long time: Why do we have this phrase? The words \\\"moral\\\" (for a story\\\'s intended lesson for the reader) and \\\"fable\\\" (a fantastical story meant to convey a moral - precisely what Aesop was known for) and \\\"parable\\\" (the same thing for non-fantastical) already exist. \\\"An Aesop\\\" is LESS clear, since it could mean a moral, a fable, or a parable. You need context to figure out which. It\\\'s also redundant, since clearer terms already exist. It seems like a lingual construct as pointless as adding \\\"head of\\\" to quantities of cattle.
