[yareal]

Have you use a broad fork? It's like 4-6 blades spread across ~4 feet. The mechanism of action is totally different, and no, it does not break up the soil in the same way tilling with a spade or rototiller does.

If you are here only to argue semantic and prescriptivist use of language, you can stop responding. I'm not interested. You might be right according to some dictionary definition of these terms. In practical use by gardeners, however, these two techniques have different names and achieve different goals and only one is called tilling.

[fuzztester]

>Have you use a broad fork? It's like 4-6 blades spread across ~4 feet. The mechanism of action is totally different, and no, it does not break up the soil in the same way tilling with a spade or rototiller does.

Yes. E.g.:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Martin_Fortier

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadfork

https://www.en.jeanmartinfortier.com/

[yareal]

Yep, that's the one.

[randomdata]

> Have you use a broad fork?

Ha, no. I have heavy equipment, including a no-till drill for my no-till application needs.

I assume this means you have, though. Why have you used it if not for tillage?

[yareal]

Breaking up soil into large, mostly intact chunks, without turning it over, aeration. See the links above from the peer poster.

[randomdata]

Right, so tillage.

Aeration is not conventional tillage. Conventional tillage sees soil lifted and mixed as described earlier. A lazy speaker may leave out "conventional" in casual conversation about the mechanical practice where it is understood by context. Such context was not found here, but is that, perhaps, the source of your confusion?

[yareal]

You keep saying it's my confusion. My friend, there is no lazy speaker. It is merely the accepted and understood use of the term in casual conversation.

I understand your semantic argument, there is no confusion, I simply believe language is not prescriptivist. If people use the words in a certain way, then that is an acceptable way to use the words. No argument from a position of "well actually, the dictionary/professional jargon says..." will sway me because I just don't care.

[randomdata]

> If people use the words in a certain way, then that is an acceptable way to use the words.

Of course, and luckily for us the original link explicitly states that no-till is being used in the farming sense, so we know exactly what certain way the words are being used. No-till in farming comes with a precise definition.

Even if you are right that there is some alternative reality in gardening where tillage commonly means something completely different, that clearly doesn't apply here. In farming, aeration before seeding/planting would not be considered a no-till practice. Such an act would normally fall under what is known as minimum tillage.

> I simply believe language is not prescriptivist.

Ironically, the thread went off the rails only because you tried to prescribe an alternative, incompatible, definition onto the communication that had already taken place. Credit to you for at least recognizing the error of your ways, even if you do seem to want to sweep the initial confusion under the rug for some reason.

[yareal]

Okay bud, you win. I'll go tell all my gardening buds that the no till practices are "um actually, that's tilling".

Any other pedantry you want me to pass along while doing so?

I could tell them that "actually, tomatoes are a fruit" if it would make you feel better while I was there.