If I say, "The hue of these cars is red," I am saying, "The hue of these cars is not blue or green or yellow or brown or black or white or etc." I'm differentiating one hue from other hues. Now, I might still be using "red" to cover a narrow spectrum of possible hues -- perhaps crimson and burgundy and candy-apple are all "red." But I have decided that the commonality among those colors is stronger than the differences among them; lumping them together is fine. And I think most people will accept "red" for both "burgundy" and "crimson" in a sentence like "I'll be driving a red car."
But what if I say, "The hue of all cars is red"? I've widened the spectrum that "red" can encompass dramatically. Now, if I tell you, "I'll be driving a red car," I have given you no useful information. Which is not the same as not meaning anything. But in situations where distinctions are materially important to someone, blurring or removing those distinctions causes problems.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-23 06:19 pm (UTC)But what if I say, "The hue of all cars is red"? I've widened the spectrum that "red" can encompass dramatically. Now, if I tell you, "I'll be driving a red car," I have given you no useful information. Which is not the same as not meaning anything. But in situations where distinctions are materially important to someone, blurring or removing those distinctions causes problems.