0

I understand that the use of learnings is very controversial. Some say you can't use it, while others say, "there is nothing wrong with teachings, so why with learnings?".

I want to use learnings not as the action of learning something (a lesson) but as a list of things that are being learned and that have been learned.

Often the suggestion to replace learnings in this context is lessons.

Lessons implies:
1) the process: things that have been taught (directly or indirectly such as a life lesson)
2) the action: of learning
3) the result: the thing that has been learned

In all the three cases, a lesson is taught by someone or something and it has a direction or a goal or is seen as having a kind of sense (a lesson of math makes you clever, a lesson of life wiser).

Some examples:

  • Performing an art requires some complex learnings to survive.
  • Species need to make some learnings (epigenetics is a kind of learning/adaptation).

Don't you think "lesson" would be inappropriate? I heard that "we can't quantify a [single] learning", but we can "teach a lesson", and you can quantify a lesson (a general lesson can contain little lessons). So why not quantifying a learning that is not a lesson? The problem is to explain the difference between both since apparently no word could define precisely what a learning is made of.

I am looking for a word that only keeps the meaning 2 and 3 but that would not imply the teaching part: "several things have been learned, but no lesson has been taught (not even what positive or negative 'life lesson'). You would not talk about 'evolutionary lessons' for instance. The things learned had no goals: learning just happened".

To illustrate this point, think about a fish. It did not really have to be taught to breathe underwater and to reproduce, but somehow by evolution, the fish learned it, not strictly speaking at the individual scale but at the species scale. We could talk about "evolutionary skills". Those skills have been acquired without teaching but they are still in a way "learned" through many failed and successful adaptations and epigenetics which is a kind of innate learning.

It comes handy also when speaking about animal social learnings, at least when we consider the "learnings" that have been learned (and accumulated through generations) but that hasn't been "taught" (not even vaguely through positive or negative "life lessons". I'm talking about evolutionary skills, like the fish example).

Would you agree with the use of learnings in this case?

EDIT1: Imagine "learning" as a result (of a learning process). If it was commonly accepted in English, would you see the differences between some "social learnings" and some "social lessons"? I struggle to define precisely this difference (in French it's easy to see the difference between them since we use two words). I guess this "teaching" connotation (directly or indirectly) that bother me.

EDIT2: The topic might be tricky because it talks about the line between nature and nurture. Some believe that this line is becoming more and more blurry, some people start to think that they are no line at all (can we really change more easily our environment than our innate nature?). Imagine a kind of learning that would be halfway between innate and nurture, or even a learning that would be more innate than "nurture" (like specific epigenetics "learnings"). Don't you think "learnings" would come handy to talk about this last one?

jimm101
  • 10,753
JinSnow
  • 207
  • 2
  • 12
  • I'm not sure that I can answer your question competently (hence, the comment). This post discusses the origins, use and 'correctness' of the word learnigs. Perhaps it will help you, perhaps confuse you further. In any case lessons is more often used than learnings as this Ngram shows. – Lucky May 01 '15 at 14:34
  • 2
    EDIT1: Imagine (just try) that there is less of a teaching connotation in "lessons" than you suppose. – David Pugh May 01 '15 at 15:31
  • Your edits are making this question less on-topic. This isn't primarily a site for imagining how the language could otherwise work (except for questions which explicitly ask for neologisms.) This site is about what English is, not what it hypothetically could be. – curiousdannii May 01 '15 at 15:34
  • @curiousdannii I apologize if I went off topic, I could not find any better way to describe why I can't use "lesson", it's a tricky one. – JinSnow May 01 '15 at 15:39
  • @GuillaumeCombot I think you think you can't use 'lesson' because you think it has a different meaning than it really does. – curiousdannii May 01 '15 at 15:40
  • @DavidPugh I'm trying hard! But instead of "social learnings" would you call it "social lessons", does it sound right (I'm french)? – JinSnow May 01 '15 at 15:43
  • 1
    I know you're French, and what I and curiousdannii have been trying to tell you is that "social lessons" is fine and "social learning" bad English (in this context, mind, there are lots of books about the processes of social learning. But not like in one learning, two learnings, three.) Lesson is the word you WANT, so just use it already. – David Pugh May 01 '15 at 15:52
  • Could you please provide an example sentence, how would you fit "learning" into it? – Mari-Lou A May 01 '15 at 21:51
  • Innate and acquired characteristics. –  May 02 '15 at 01:07
  • @Mari-LouA "performing an art requires some complex learnings" (The learning required to practice this art is made of many subtle "learnings") – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 07:45
  • You can't use "learning(s)" in that way. It doesn't work. BUT, if you add that example in your question people will come up with alternatives. EDIT: the term lessons doesn't really fit either. – Mari-Lou A May 02 '15 at 07:50
  • To master an art one needs: experience, practice, patience and ability (or talent). I don't know if all these different qualities can be summed up in one word. Have I understood your question correctly? – Mari-Lou A May 02 '15 at 07:58
  • @Mari-LouA thank you! I'll update my question. "What about that one: to survive species need to make some learnings" (epigenetics is a kind of learning/adaptation). Don't you think lesson would be inappropriate? I just saw your edit, ok that make much more sense now. Thank you! – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 08:01
  • Add that example, too. It is much better, more illustrative than saying "fish learn to breathe". Again, you cannot use learnings in that way. It's not idiomatic. And you cannot quantify learning, it's like quantifying "studying". Do you get my drift? :) – Mari-Lou A May 02 '15 at 08:14
  • @Mari-LouA yes, I guess you understood. I need to talk about about little things that could not really be defined but that are parts of a specific learning (and that aren't lesson being taught "by life" or anything, the word should fit with the concept of "evolution mechanism"). I'd like to use "social learnings" as little step needed to constitute a (one) specific "social learning". I can't use the word lesson and you mysteriously seem to be the only one who perceived why. Could you please help me to describe why lesson would not fit? – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 08:15
  • Lessons can have a somewhat negative connotation. You learn something by mistake, trial and error. "It was a hard lesson" "That taught me a lesson" but after having gone through that life experience, you are in a stronger, better position than before. EDIT: Just because you can use "learnings" in the way you desire in a different language, doesn't mean you can with English. That's what people have been trying to tell you all along :) – Mari-Lou A May 02 '15 at 08:19
  • @Mari-LouA thank you for your explanation. "And you cannot quantify learning, it's like quantifying "studying" ". I understand the english rule, but... (please don't be angry!) you can in other languages. It sound to me like as weird as if you said "you can call a color that has no color", yes you can and its called "white". You can't quantify learning, yes you can that would be "learnings". (But I got that it sound like a blasphemy!) – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 08:21
  • @Mari-LouA we have the same word in french, with the exact same connotation. I see in french why it would not fit for evolution principle, but I can't explain it in English. That should be difficult to explain it in English since you don't quantify learning, and you don't make the difference between a lesson and learning. A learning can be made of many little lesson (like good or bad life lessons) but of "learnings" that can't be defined as lessons: for instance I never heard anybody using "lesson" to talk about evolutionary principle. – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 08:29

3 Answers3

4

Learning as a noun is very unnatural. Using it would instantly mark you as someone who speaks English as a second language. The appropriate noun to use is lesson. I don't think there is any logical reason why it is unnatural, because, as is so often the case, language is unpredictable.

You say that lesson or lessons implies intentionality, but this is not the case. Neither does the verb to learn imply an intentional teacher. This is asymmetrical: both to teach and teachings are intentional, but it is equally valid to say that something was learnt in intentional and non-intentional contexts.

The ability of fish to breath in water would not be considered something that is learnt - it is simply innate. Other animals certainly do learn, and can be taught. As with humans, it is appropriate to say that animals can learn skills even when not being intentionally taught.

curiousdannii
  • 5,725
  • 3
    "Learning as a noun is very unnatural. Using it would instantly mark you as someone who speaks English as a second language." I think in the interests of M. Combot we should clarify that the noun in other usages like "He is a man of great learning" is perfectly OK. – David Pugh May 01 '15 at 15:05
  • 2
    @DavidPugh Oh good point about 'great learning'. So it can be acceptable as a mass noun, referring to a whole education, but not individual things that someone learnt. – curiousdannii May 01 '15 at 15:35
  • @curiousdannii ok but how would you call a specific learning if it hasn't been taught, and especially if it was somehow more close to the innate than the other side? – JinSnow May 01 '15 at 15:48
  • @GuillaumeCombot If it is something that was acquired then 'lesson' is appropriate. It the creature has always had the ability, then 'talent' would be best I think. 'Skill' could be used for something that was learnt or not. – curiousdannii May 01 '15 at 15:50
  • @curiousdannii thank you for your patience! I like "social skills". Instead of "social learning" that would be so handy, (but sadly forbidden!). Your comment gave me an idea: I could maybe use "learned abilities" it doesn't have the lesson connotation (goal+life teaching). Does it sound alright for a native English speaker? – JinSnow May 01 '15 at 16:10
  • @GuillaumeCombot Lesson does not have those connotations! – curiousdannii May 01 '15 at 16:15
  • @curiousdannii I'm struggling about what you say concerning its connotation since we use the same word in french with the exact same meaning. But we have a word you are missing in English. Please take also into account that it's quite hard to figure out our language limits (and they are quite a lot) unless you know other more precise way to express the same idea, with a higher precision, using a foreign language. – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 07:19
  • I find the English language much more precise than french in many topics (started with psychology). (I wish I was a native English speaker, your language is more efficient). I might be totally wrong (there is good chance for it since I'm a foreigner) but I have the feeling that you might miss an important difference between the meaning of "learnings" (if it did exist) and lessons. "it would instantly mark you as someone who speaks English as a second language", I'm afraid I would not even need to use that word to be caught as a barbarian! – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 07:21
  • @guillaumecombot No language is any more or less efficient than any other, just different. Any you may have something that looks the same in French, but English has been affected by language change. – curiousdannii May 02 '15 at 12:19
  • @curiousdannii I do respect your point of view, but it remains a point of view. – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 12:32
  • @GuillaumeCombot What is that supposed to mean? Do you want accurate information about how English actually is, or do you just want to argue how you wish it was? – curiousdannii May 02 '15 at 14:14
  • @curiousdannii (when I was talking about "point of view, it was only about the "efficiency" topic only). But I confess I was looking for both! I wanted to create a debate. I feel that language are made to evolve. Stack is a good place to argue: some people might face the same problem, and feel also the need to use learning in that way. I'm not conservative, I thus don't see the will for change, (this desire to shake up "the things that are always been there") as something threatening, bad, or arrogant, but rather as a desire to improve things. – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 15:12
  • @curiousdannii Words rules are merely conventions, nothing else, people do what other are doing, conventions change with usage. Some want to conserve the old stuff some wants to make them better. I might be wrong about all those things, I'm aware of it. – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 15:13
  • @GuillauneCombot This site allows questions of current usage and questions of creative usage. But they need to be kept distinct. This looks like a question asking for an explanation of current usage. If you wanted it to be a creative question you needed to be much more explicit. – curiousdannii May 02 '15 at 22:37
  • 1
    lesson is one of the words that supposedly underwent change from lection /k/ to /s/ (cp centum, e.g.) ... in French ... I still don't understand that, and I'm not sure it's properly understood at all, so please excuse me if I'm wrong, but it might well be a doublet of learning, if learn has a relative in German lesen "read", supposedly through rhotazism. I should open an appropriate question about it, when I find the time. – vectory Jan 19 '20 at 07:07
2

"there is nothing wrong with teachings so why with learnings?"

To which I should respond, it might be nice if English had such an expression, but it doesn't.

The good news: "Lessons" can cover a lot more than formal sessions of teaching: you have "life-lessons". "Never do such-and-such at poker", and after losing your shirt you have learned a important lesson. So I assure you that you can use "lessons" for your 2) and 3) without fear of committing yourself to their being taught by some guy with chalk-dust on his jacket and leather patches on his elbows (or with horizontal green ears...).

I am unhappy with the idea of the fish "learning", but this is another issue. Come back to that if you want.

David Pugh
  • 2,797
  • @Thanks David! A life lesson, remains a teaching, it has a point and even an immediate goal (to make you wiser), I'm need to talk about "learnings" (sorry I can't fin any better word!), that are half-way between nature and nurture, or just (to simplify the things) just within the level of nurture: so no lesson taught. I edited my question (edit1 & 2) – JinSnow May 01 '15 at 15:34
  • 1
    What makes me really unhappy about your idea of species learning is the hypostatisation of the species, as if it is a thing that can do stuff. A species is a mere abstraction. It is some human deciding to classify some critters together with other critters. What actually happens is that some critters do it right and live, other critters do it wrong and die. Then the ones that get it wrong don't have offspring. I don't like the term "learning" for this natural selection. And the species does not "learn", the human category called species becomes full of different critters than before. – David Pugh May 01 '15 at 15:47
  • I understand your frustration about it. I agree with you about the global idea. My fish example is not really accurate. I just used this evolution to picture an much more complex idea that would be too long to explain here and much more confusing. I'm struggeling to find an equivalent of "social learnings" that would not have the "lesson" connotation. We use the same word in french and english, it has exactly the same meaning/connotation (we also get the "life lesson"). Lessons can't fit on the way I need to write about "social learnings". "Social lessons" would not work. – JinSnow May 01 '15 at 16:04
1

I'm brand new here so am cautiously, I hope, going to get my toes wet. To teach is a deliberate act. One can teach many different things on a single subject, therefore "teachings". Teachings are also a definable body. However, to learn, while it requires participation of some sort (even if only, for instance, learning about gravity by falling off a cliff), is like to breathe - it is a process which mostly takes place outside of our direct control. To talk about "learnings" is like talking about "breathings" - the air we breathe becomes an idiosyncratic part of a larger system; the thing learned becomes, and only functions as part of, the larger system of knowledge into which it is inducted. Further, while we may all be taught the same thing, what we learn is at least somewhat idiosyncratic. So while it is very popular among school administrators in our area, it still sounds pretentious and awkward to me. As I said, I'm very much a student and welcome correction on this.

Marion Blais
  • 21
  • Thanks Marion to wet your toes! That argument "It is very popular among school administrators", seems to play strongly in favor of "learnings" since these people are working in the education fields. Compare with the rest of the population (who doesn't work on that field, like me), we can't deny that these people have, statistically, a better knowledge about this "learning" word than the others (who did not really study it, or even need to think about it). – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 07:00
  • Concerning the "pretentious" argument, I don't think that this is the words that are pretentious, but the people who carry them. A smart word could serve a mediocre issue, some would argue that human words are mainly use for that. That said, its interesting to know that it will sound awkward, pretentious or foreigner. – JinSnow May 02 '15 at 15:32
  • M. Combot, thank you for your response to my comment. Your point about those working in the field of education is well taken. Sadly, unlike France, we play fast and loose with our language. To your point about the people not the words being pretentious, how true! Even the educated, and especially those who educated them, wantonly abuse language in an attempt to inflate their own purported wisdom. – Marion Blais May 03 '15 at 16:50