Physicists might argue that, but black is a color linguistically and in common usage; I’d argue that since OP was generally speaking in a linguistic context, linguistic rules override physics pedantry.
I thought briefly about editing that to say, “in this context”, but I thought it might be redundant.
It’s like the whole fruit/vegetable debate, and there not really being a scientific category of “vegetables” that aligns with the common usage. However, in common usage, the loose, lay definition of “vegetable” is far more useful than the scientific, taxonomical one.
Yeah. I’ve had this discussing with others in different forms, where they are arguing that words have specific definitions…
I would go even further… My take is that what you said is right, but also, what a given context (like “cooking”) is can be very different for different people… So even in situations where three is really only one meaning for a word (rare, but maybe “broccoli” is an example), the word is understood differently by different people because it has different connotations attached for everyone (e.g. “I love/hate it”, “my grandparent used to cook it badly”).
Word definitions are like the lowest common denominator consensus version of those individual meaning, but they are changing slightly all the time as people change. Dictionaries are just documenting that evolution, but are constantly playing catch-up.
Physicists might argue that, but black is a color linguistically and in common usage; I’d argue that since OP was generally speaking in a linguistic context, linguistic rules override physics pedantry.
Idk why, maybe because I’m a scientist, but this speaks to something in my soul
I thought briefly about editing that to say, “in this context”, but I thought it might be redundant.
It’s like the whole fruit/vegetable debate, and there not really being a scientific category of “vegetables” that aligns with the common usage. However, in common usage, the loose, lay definition of “vegetable” is far more useful than the scientific, taxonomical one.
Context is king.
Yeah. I’ve had this discussing with others in different forms, where they are arguing that words have specific definitions…
I would go even further… My take is that what you said is right, but also, what a given context (like “cooking”) is can be very different for different people… So even in situations where three is really only one meaning for a word (rare, but maybe “broccoli” is an example), the word is understood differently by different people because it has different connotations attached for everyone (e.g. “I love/hate it”, “my grandparent used to cook it badly”).
Word definitions are like the lowest common denominator consensus version of those individual meaning, but they are changing slightly all the time as people change. Dictionaries are just documenting that evolution, but are constantly playing catch-up.