The book, The Language Police, is a pretty good start.
Teacup is simply a descriptive term, nothing more, nothing less. To me, the term makes things clearer. I don't have "teacups" - if one means they are less than 4 pounds, but the word is hardly worth giving any more weight than the word "small". The AKC doesn't necessarily sanction "small" Yorkie either. If teacup is how the public chooses to recognize a "small" Yorkie I can't see the big deal. If it's small, it's small, thus if it's a teacup (per the definition that equates to "small") then it is in fact a "teacup" so if one looks like at that it does exist. It's now at the point it's growing weary.
It's like calling a horse "red" rather than calling it a sorrel, a horse "tan" rather than a dun. So what? I've yet to figure out why any one would care to the point of letting it upset them or why they feel the need to correct someone's choice of descriptive terms.
I can't imagine anyone, being asked to have a "Kleenex" passed would feel the need to correct someone by saying well, this isn't actually a "Kleenex", it's a generic store brand "tissue". (other than the Kleenex company of course but that's best reserved for copyright infringement 101)
__________________  Kendra |