[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Stupid Sexy Flanders

It is none of those things, if writers and editors consciously decide (see post #11) that the word is being used as a collective.

I don't understand why people object to the natural and logical evolution of the language.

I absolutely agree.

Really what is happening here is there is an evolution of the concept behind the word, from something perceived conceptually as diverse, even fragmented, to something that represents a collective and perhaps analytically homogeneous whole.

While one can characterise that ideologically - as done in a post above - one can simply see this as reflecting a market evolution.

There is nothing sloppy or lazy about such an evolution. Rather, one can say it reflects a primacy of reality over abstractions and ossified academic pedantry that would pretend that word origins trump evolving usage reflecting evolving realities.

(not that I am not personally annoyed by certain usage evolutions - even when I use them: e.g. leverage versus use in business speak. I hate it, but that is personal taste, and I use leverage in business speak as that is the standard, even though I detest the usage.)