|
|
<garabik-news-2005-05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ed61qb$nh6$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
But it is a dwarf in the sense in which a white dwarf is a dwarf, since
"dwarf" is short for "dwarf star", and "red dwarf" is a hyponym of "dwarf".
By the way, "dwarf star" is not to "star" as "dwarf planet" is to "planet",
or so I understand. Finally, my example was nice, too, wasn't it:
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/av/images/images/img2112.gif.
Regards,
Ekkehard
|
|
