Posted by Neredbojias on 12/12/04 12:01
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:51:32 GMT
Kevin Scholl scribed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>>> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>>> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>>> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>>> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>>> loss to describe such a cup.
>> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
> Just to play devil's advocate, is that necessarily true? What about
> those cone-shaped paper cups that typically accompany water jugs in
> office or sports environments? If the cone is the side(s), then the cup
> has no bottom per se. Or, if the cone is in fact the bottom, then the
> cup has no sides.
Well there's still a part that prevents the contents from leaving the cup.
Where the sides end and the bottom starts might be arbitrary or indefinite,
true, but a bottom (as commonly expressed) exists no matter what the shape.
I kinda like how asdf phrased it:
"...should the cup be cone shaped, then the cup has sides AND a bottom, the
functions of which are performed by the cone itself, and depending on from
which angle you are perceiving the cup."
> "What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)
Uh, one meaningless subject at a time if you please...
Riches are their own reward.
[Reply to this message]