There's a joke about a three-legged dog in here somewhere, I think. Ursula
Donal McEvoy wrote:
Yes, and this is true of 'triangles' also: what (in normal usage) "we call" triangular will always have be three-sided, but there is no reason in logic why we could not use the word 'triangle' to refer to a four-sided object rather than a three-sided one. It is obviously true that a three-sided object will be three-sided but it is only a convention of language what term or terms we use to refer to such objects: insofar as we insist that triangle is not "rightly so called" when used to refer to an object that is not three-sided we are merely appealing to rightness in terms of such conventions of usage. We can allow 'triangle' to be used otherwise without contradiction but if it is used otherwise, say to refer to a four-sided object, we can insist that certain consequences follow logically from this e.g. if the speaker subsequently uses the term triangle to refer to a three-sided object it is logically the case that they are not using the term 'triangle' in the same sense in which they used it to refer to a four-sided object - they are giving it a different meanning.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html