> If people use the words in a certain way, then that is an acceptable way to use the words.
Of course, and luckily for us the original link explicitly states that no-till is being used in the farming sense, so we know exactly what certain way the words are being used. No-till in farming comes with a precise definition.
Even if you are right that there is some alternative reality in gardening where tillage commonly means something completely different, that clearly doesn't apply here. In farming, aeration before seeding/planting would not be considered a no-till practice. Such an act would normally fall under what is known as minimum tillage.
> I simply believe language is not prescriptivist.
Ironically, the thread went off the rails only because you tried to prescribe an alternative, incompatible, definition onto the communication that had already taken place. Credit to you for at least recognizing the error of your ways, even if you do seem to want to sweep the initial confusion under the rug for some reason.
Huh? Clearly you won – you got to learn something. I am the one who lost. Respectfully, thinking things through isn't your strong suit, is it?
> I'll go tell all my gardening buds that the no till practices are "um actually, that's tilling".
Whatever floats your boat, but let me warn you: Unless your gardening buds are high on the "gardened bud", they are not going to buy into your idea that no-till means "to perform tillage" any more than we have, even if you are perfectly free and able to hold that view. No-till is literally the abbreviation of "no tillage".
Of course, and luckily for us the original link explicitly states that no-till is being used in the farming sense, so we know exactly what certain way the words are being used. No-till in farming comes with a precise definition.
Even if you are right that there is some alternative reality in gardening where tillage commonly means something completely different, that clearly doesn't apply here. In farming, aeration before seeding/planting would not be considered a no-till practice. Such an act would normally fall under what is known as minimum tillage.
> I simply believe language is not prescriptivist.
Ironically, the thread went off the rails only because you tried to prescribe an alternative, incompatible, definition onto the communication that had already taken place. Credit to you for at least recognizing the error of your ways, even if you do seem to want to sweep the initial confusion under the rug for some reason.