Aliasing turf → tuft
Link to alias

Reason:

I srsly don't know the difference.

Alias along with,

• turf
• cheek_turf
• chest_turf (so far this is the most)
• ear_turf
• neck_turf
• nipple_turf
• tail_turf

To prevent future mistakes.

Huh. I've always seen "turf" as meaning lawn or land-based-territory [aka, "my terf" or "terf wars" or even "surf and turf"] etc. But looking through the tag history, it looks like it does sometimes gets used to tag fur tufts on this site for some reason by a couple different users. I suppose I can see some resemblance to the texture of a lawn vs texture of fur, or even a mild homophone effect going on. But I still never would have guessed it would get used this way. So that's interesting.

I think the main alias (turf to --> tuft) might not be a good idea because it's far more common to use turf = grass. But ones like chest_turf etc are probably safe to alias without causing any problem as long as they're actually occurring fairly often. I'm not passing anything yet though, because the thread is still brand new and I generally try to give people at least a couple days to see everything and weigh in. So we'll see.

Turf, as in turf war?

Yeah, aliasing it to tuft doesn't seem like a good idea. And I don't think any of the aliases are needed either, would probably be easiest to just clean it manually since there's so few users who've tagged those.

Turf and tuft do not carry the same meaning. Alias denied.

Turf and tuft share the same germanic root (as in "a tuft of grass") and it's possible that they are just being confused by people who speak a language like German or Dutch as well as English. Granted I don't know enough of either to say for certain.

Either way, I agree with Genjar on the reasoning. Turf -> tuft is probably not a good idea, and the others are not common enough to justify aliasing them.

parasprite said:
Turf and tuft share the same germanic root (as in "a tuft of grass") and it's possible that they are just being confused by people who speak a language like German or Dutch as well as English. Granted I don't know enough of either to say for certain.

Either way, I agree with Genjar on the reasoning. Turf -> tuft is probably not a good idea, and the others are not common enough to justify aliasing them.

I honestly wonder if it's a misheard thing. Like the phrase "be there or be square" has evolved with some people mishearing it so now some people actually say "be there or be swear". Or people who write that someone "shuttered" instead of "shuddered" (from cold or fear). Language sometimes does that if the words sound close enough and so it gets a little lost in translation.

Bear in mind I have no proof that's what's happening here. I just can't shake the suspicion that's where it's coming from, that sort of phenomenon.

furrypickle said:
I honestly wonder if it's a misheard thing. Like the phrase "be there or be square" has evolved with some people mishearing it so now some people actually say "be there or be swear". Or people who write that someone "shuttered" instead of "shuddered" (from cold or fear). Language sometimes does that if the words sound close enough and so it gets a little lost in translation.

Bear in mind I have no proof that's what's happening here. I just can't shake the suspicion that's where it's coming from, that sort of phenomenon.

quite/quiet they sound similar enough so they could get mixed up. i've seen this sort of thing happen many times (in fanfics) though not when it comes to pictures.

furrypickle said:
I honestly wonder if it's a misheard thing. Like the phrase "be there or be square" has evolved with some people mishearing it so now some people actually say "be there or be swear". Or people who write that someone "shuttered" instead of "shuddered" (from cold or fear). Language sometimes does that if the words sound close enough and so it gets a little lost in translation.

Bear in mind I have no proof that's what's happening here. I just can't shake the suspicion that's where it's coming from, that sort of phenomenon.

Believe it or not, this is actually quite literally how 99%+ of language phonology develops over time. It also heavily influences grammar and even meaning in the right conditions.

For example, one of the transitions we may be in the middle of is the subtle change of a sentence like "I could have done it" to "I could of done it", being mostly due to the normal pronunciation of "could've" being identical or near-identical when said out loud (Note: This may depend on region).

parasprite said:
Believe it or not, this is actually quite literally how 99%+ of language phonology develops over time. It also heavily influences grammar and even meaning in the right conditions.

For example, one of the transitions we may be in the middle of is the subtle change of a sentence like "I could have done it" to "I could of done it", being mostly due to the normal pronunciation of "could've" being identical or near-identical when said out loud (Note: This may depend on region).

I love this kind of stuff and think it's fascinating. I was introduced to dictionaries at a young age and have been corrupted ever since. Language, and how people use it, is fascinating stuff. I hadn't noticed the "could have"/"could of" thing going on. Though I've seen both in use, I hadn't made the connection yet. It'll be interesting to see if it will stick or just be a passing linguistic fad.