|
|
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4liujgF24c4aU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> > "Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:4lhpv8F1tkmiU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid I have no idea, Harlan, but what irritates me no end about
> > the
> >>> new term is that "[adjective] planet" should logically be a hyponym of
> >>> "planet". I really dislike that sort of jargon. In fact, my aversion
to
> >>> usages like the following probably made it easier for me to empathise
> > with
> >>> Daniel's preoccupation with the meanings of "rare".
> >> The exceptions perplex even further: "fake planet" or "phony planet"
> >> would not logically be a hyponym of "planet".
> >
> > And "apparent exception" somehow manages to simultaneously be a hyponym
of
> > "exception" and, er, something else.
>
> Is that like "the smallest natural number that can't be described in
> under sixty-eight letters"?
Do you appreciate self-referential rhetorical questions as much as I do?
Anyway, while a miniature elephant may not be an elephant, a dwarf rabbit is
definitely a rabbit. Even the lesser dwarf lemur can be considered a lemur,
though admittedly not a "true lemur".
Regards,
Ekkehard
|
|