在这里我假设你问你是否可以应用“侵蚀”一词来破坏你的石头,而不是伤害你的地板上了。在这种情况下,这个术语的适用性与其说在于*谁做* * *发生的什么。在地质学中,术语“侵蚀”通常是应用于陆地表面而不是个人,松散的岩石。例如,* *有:牛津英语词典> * *侵蚀* *,诉> 2。青烟。的电流的作用、冰川等。>。磨损;出去吃。> b。形成(通道等)逐渐磨损。尼科尔斯(2009),更简洁,说>…侵蚀风化层材料的去除。 Once your stone is picked up and taken into your house, it's no longer part of the regolith material, although the surface you took it from was itself eroded by the stone's removal. In the literature, human influences aren't usually excluded when discussing ‘erosion’. For example, the term is often applied when discussing how footpaths are worn down by human use (see e.g. Coleman, 1981). So, if your dropped stone chipped a bit out of your floor, you *might* try to claim that as erosion, but only if you're prepared to argue that your floor constitutes regolith! If you want a geologically appropriate term for what happened to your stone, *abrasion* would probably cover it: > **abrasion** (corrasion): The erosive action that occurs when rock particles of varying size are dragged over or hurled against a surface. (Allaby, 2008) ---- Allaby, M. (2008). *Oxford Dictionary of Earth Science*. Oxford University Press. Coleman, R. (1981). Footpath erosion in the English Lake District. *Applied Geography*, 1(2), 121-131. Nichols, G. (2009). *Sedimentology and stratigraphy*. John Wiley & Sons.