inkstains

"I just... don't understand what your concern about this is, honestly. Some specialists decided that this was an important distinction to make, and some laypeople use their terminology while others don't. All words are just symbols, with no actual truth behind them. It's like getting upset if people with physics backgrounds use "mass" instead of "weight", because "weight" for them symbolises something slightly differently."

:) Now who said I was upset? Sorry if I come across that way but I'm directed when I debate, it certainly wasn't done to upset you in anyway. I'm just debating the power of words. This is the topic this week isn't it? The white and grey horse thing was simply a stray comment on the erractic usuage of the English language. Which I love by the way.


"...I can't parse this sentence. You make it sound like you'd call Italian white horses "bianco horses"...?"

Yes we do! And Palamino which also means white.



"(c) there's reputation on the line regarding their colour."

Now that's a good point and logical. If I had given up at your pulling the straw man line I would never have heard it from you and thus considered it.

"Whereas: (a) there are a lot of different horse coat colours, (b) there is a distinction between white-haired pink-skinned and white-haired grey-skinned, and (c) there is money and reputation associated with breeding white or grey horses."

Now I might have missed this vital bit of horse sense because no one in my section of the horsey world was bothered by breed, not when you can buy a sturdy mongral for £50. So another good point. :)

"These two situations aren't really compatible for logical argument."

Of course they are, until you factor in breeding lines, then it becomes incompatible and only then.

Please don't take things so seriously I'm not really a dragon, honestly!