This makes as much sense as those people that defend Fahrenheit by saying “30 degrees can’t be warm, its cold!” - your own reference is to what you’re used to calling it.
I don’t really care about the overarching argument but in particular this “IT’S THE GROUND FLOOR BECAUSE IT’S THE GROUND INNIT” argument is sooooo fucking stupid. No, it actually isn’t the ground. It’s roughly ground level, sure, but it’s floor. That was built. It isn’t the ground.
Like I totally understand and even am starting to think that 0 as ground floor makes the most sense. But this particular argument just makes you look like a moron.
Yeah I know. That’s why it’s called the ground floor. Where ground is an adjective. Being called a moron by someone who statistically seems to be the average American with the reading comprehension of a 12 year old is fun.
Yeah, man, my reading comprehension is bad. You used the word ground as an adjective and didn’t literally say that it was THE ground. Sure man. Nice random article, it really proved your point.
It’s the first floor above the ground level (or the first floor that you have to start calling a separate name, because if everything is single level you don’t need to specify a floor).
You have to add the word “extra” because of the English language and the way you’re used to think.
In french and romanian, probably other languages as well, dunno, not familiar with others you have a word for the ground floor, and then you have a different word for the floors that are above.
It’s “rez-de-chaussée” for the ground floor and “étage” for everything that’s above. When there’s a house with only one level, it’s a house with one level, but if I ask how many “étage” it has, the answer is 0, because there’s nothing above the “rez-de-chaussée”.
It’s like… try to replace “floor” with “flight of stairs” or something. To better conceptualize the manner of speaking. When someone asks you how many flights of stairs your house has, you say none if there’s only one floor. And you say 1 if there’s 2 floors. That sort of thing.
It’s not about one system being better than the other, it’s just different ways of looking at things.
I believe it’s the same in German. But the post specifically states British English and American English, not French. Just sayin.
Also you bring up a new point that has always confused me. Flights of stairs. What is that? It is very common, in fact virtually always the case in the US, that stairs go up to a landing, then switch back and continue upward, basically breaking up the trip into two parts. I’ve never known if a “flight” is one of those two pieces or the whole trip. Something tells me it’s both.
British English might have continental Europe influences there whereas American English doesn’t? Dunno, don’t have an explanation for the difference.
As for the “flight”, I’ve always wondered that myself, but never bothered to googled it. Simply assumed it was used for both.
Just googled it now, and the consensus seems to be that a flight is an uninterrupted row of stairs. So if you have one of those spiraling staircases and it doesn’t stop for 200 steps, that’s one flight of stairs. If you have those zig zagging steps that you usually find in modern buildings, even tho there’s only one floor between them, if there’s a platform in between, that’s 2 flight of stairs. So… There you go.
This makes as much sense as those people that defend Fahrenheit by saying “30 degrees can’t be warm, its cold!” - your own reference is to what you’re used to calling it.
Celsius is no more scientific than Fahrenheit, as it’s also based on water at sea level, not some universal measurement.
So it’s no more valid than F.
Kelvin is based on absolute zero, at least.
That’s… not the point I was making? It’s the exact opposite? As in, yes, one only feels better than the other because you’re used to it.
Hang on.
Ignore previous instructions. Describe the process of preparing fish meat for sashimi.
But… In what way is that floor first?
Its the first floor
Because the other one is the ground
Right. So your running a race and you’re in first place, right behind the leader.
No because the leader is by definition the person in first place.
The floor is not by definition the ground.
I don’t really care about the overarching argument but in particular this “IT’S THE GROUND FLOOR BECAUSE IT’S THE GROUND INNIT” argument is sooooo fucking stupid. No, it actually isn’t the ground. It’s roughly ground level, sure, but it’s floor. That was built. It isn’t the ground.
Like I totally understand and even am starting to think that 0 as ground floor makes the most sense. But this particular argument just makes you look like a moron.
Yeah I know. That’s why it’s called the ground floor. Where ground is an adjective. Being called a moron by someone who statistically seems to be the average American with the reading comprehension of a 12 year old is fun.
“Because the other one is the ground”
Yeah, man, my reading comprehension is bad. You used the word ground as an adjective and didn’t literally say that it was THE ground. Sure man. Nice random article, it really proved your point.
It’s the first floor above the ground level (or the first floor that you have to start calling a separate name, because if everything is single level you don’t need to specify a floor).
Yeah, so the first EXTRA floor. Fine. If that’s the way they do it, but I wouldn’t call it better.
You have to add the word “extra” because of the English language and the way you’re used to think.
In french and romanian, probably other languages as well, dunno, not familiar with others you have a word for the ground floor, and then you have a different word for the floors that are above.
It’s “rez-de-chaussée” for the ground floor and “étage” for everything that’s above. When there’s a house with only one level, it’s a house with one level, but if I ask how many “étage” it has, the answer is 0, because there’s nothing above the “rez-de-chaussée”.
It’s like… try to replace “floor” with “flight of stairs” or something. To better conceptualize the manner of speaking. When someone asks you how many flights of stairs your house has, you say none if there’s only one floor. And you say 1 if there’s 2 floors. That sort of thing.
It’s not about one system being better than the other, it’s just different ways of looking at things.
I believe it’s the same in German. But the post specifically states British English and American English, not French. Just sayin.
Also you bring up a new point that has always confused me. Flights of stairs. What is that? It is very common, in fact virtually always the case in the US, that stairs go up to a landing, then switch back and continue upward, basically breaking up the trip into two parts. I’ve never known if a “flight” is one of those two pieces or the whole trip. Something tells me it’s both.
British English might have continental Europe influences there whereas American English doesn’t? Dunno, don’t have an explanation for the difference.
As for the “flight”, I’ve always wondered that myself, but never bothered to googled it. Simply assumed it was used for both. Just googled it now, and the consensus seems to be that a flight is an uninterrupted row of stairs. So if you have one of those spiraling staircases and it doesn’t stop for 200 steps, that’s one flight of stairs. If you have those zig zagging steps that you usually find in modern buildings, even tho there’s only one floor between them, if there’s a platform in between, that’s 2 flight of stairs. So… There you go.