ED: Okay, I guess I lied when I said the discussion was played out because I have obviously kept going. In my defense, this is technically new subject matter. I promise that this time, I'll let Veelk have the last word if so desired.
This presumes that I, as the cook, am forcing anyone to accept my variant of food. This is simply not what is happening. I've stated multiple times I am indifferent to what other people choose as their particular canon. This is one misconception I really wish would stop. It is untrue and puts people in a defensive state of mind, as if I'm trying to force something on them.
I don't see why you would be the cook in the analogy anymore than you would be the customer. In any event, the analogy is not about the cook forcing the customer to eat something, it's about our use of language and how it works to communicate information with each other. A Dish Name is merely a sign which communicates meaning and information.
The term 'Eggs Benedict' signifies to us an English muffin, topped with ham, poached eggs, and Hollandaise sauce (the signified object). If we allowed cooks and customers to create and operate under their own expansive and disparate personal meanings, then such a shift at large would dilute the dish name to a point where what's being signified is no longer a shared culturally understood concept. The word itself would lose meaning and comprehension. By standing for
some-thing , it cannot stand for
any-thing.
It's not about you forcing something onto others directly. It's about a mode of language operation which, if used or accepted by most people, would make communication of information through language worse.
There is no 'provider' of the official canon in this analogy to the audience. Or rather, the audience themselves are the providers. They cook the food, however they want, and eat it themselves. There is no one making them eat Rachel Sandwiches if they want Reuben.
Again, the issue is not about you forcing people to do something regarding food or media. It's about people using language to signify ideas or concepts and having natural expectations about what their language expresses and how it will be understood. You cannot just cook a steak and call it Eggs Benedict. Well you can, but no one would understand that as a correct or useful expression of language. Yes, if everyone suddenly decided to call steaks Eggs Benedict, then our expression of language would change, but the fact that language is mutable in this way does not imply that this kind of change should be preferred or accepted. Language is and should be self policing; it develops to help facilitate the exchange of information, not impede it.
Now, if I consider Irish Eggs Benedict THE definitive Eggs Benedict sandwich for me. I could go my whole life without ever giving particular reverence to the ordinary Eggs Benedict, even refusing to eat it in favor of Irish Eggs Benedict. If it is all I eat, to the point that it is the first thing I think of when I hear the generic phrase "Eggs Benedict", then for all intents and purposes, Irish Eggs Benedict is the canon Eggs Benedict for me. It's not just the 'preferred one' it is the conceptualization of Eggs Benedict as a default.
I'm not disputing that someone
could do this, I'm just saying that this is not an ideal outcome or a beneficial use of language. This kind of behavior cuts against the entire purpose and benefits of shared language. It's why the people who came up with their 'preferred' style of Eggs Benedict created new names to signify those concepts. They didn't simply call their creation Eggs Benedict, they called it Irish Eggs Benedict, because as an operation of language this was more effective at communicating the desired information across.
Now, for the purposes of common discourse, normal Eggs Benedict is the one most people are familiar with. The primary objection I see from the other side is that if I take Irish Eggs Benedict as canon, then it will cause confusion because I will be talking about IEB as if it's ordinary EB. Well, I can't speak for other people, but I've never encountered this to be a problem. All it requires is the common sense knowledge that the source will be the most well known all types, so I use qualifiers acknowledging that Irish Eggs Benedict is a variant, even though I personally consider it the definitive model.
Well, now I'm hungry.
This is where it breaks down. If you use the term Eggs Benedict to refer to Irish Eggs Benedict, then you will be signifying the wrong concept to other people. Your use of language will fail to express the actual information and meaning that you intended to get across. The cook will prepare the wrong meal for you because your use of language when ordering was not compatible. How could this not be a problem?
Now if you are not using the term Eggs Benedict to refer to Irish Eggs Benedict because you know that everyone else will make this mistake, then all you are doing is reinforcing the existing use of language by adhering to the accepted nomenclature. If you never actually use the term Eggs Benedict to refer to Irish Eggs Benedict, then as an instrument of language you're not actually doing anything differently; language has to be expressed externally.
You might protest that, yes, you do believe that's what the word means, you just don't use it because no one would understand what you're saying. But that's the whole point of language in the first place, we communicate under a shared system of signified meanings based on communal understanding, not personal. You can personally believe that Eggs Benedict means steak, but as part of language, that's not what Eggs Benedict means, and if you don't respond to language using this belief, then linguistically you don't really believe it either.
One can think that Irish Eggs Benedict is the best kind and that it should be the default serving or understanding of Eggs Benedict, but this is less about language and more about opinions. It is not the same thing as what Eggs Benedict actually means in our language and culture; what Eggs Benedict expresses and what is understood by its use.
_/¯
