this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
152 points (99.4% liked)
Not The Onion
18053 readers
1219 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aside from that this article only comes to the conclusion of broad implications and the author himself says he used both interchangeably in his book, this is an American source and the headline for this post is British. I don't know about American Engkish, but there is no expectation of a stone being worked by humans in British English. In common usage here a rock is generally bigger than a stone - I'd say whether you can throw it one-handed is roughly where the extremely fuzzy line is - but you could absolutely just pick up any small piece of stone from the ground in nature and call it "a stone" without anyone questioning it
Yea, it's nonsense to say "stone" means worked by human hands.
Here's what Dictionary.com has to say:
The etymology of stone indicates same:
Anecdotal: I've never once heard anyone, ever, make this distinction. Stone and rock are synonymous.