|
|
Ekkehard Dengler <ED-RS@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> 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".
A nicer example: a red dwarf is not a (fairy tale) dwarf. Neither are a brown
dwarf and a black dwarf. And a red giant is not a (furious or alcoholic) giant.
And a μ meson is not a meson (I know, historical name and reasons...)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
|
|