Hi Jim,
The more you're called upon to
explain and defend your definition, the more I admire what
you've done. You haven't strayed an inch outside the
campground in which you staked your original claim. The size
and shape you've given us may not please everybody, and it
may not win universal acceptance, but it certainly meets the
criteria of a good definition - it is precise, clear, simple,
easy to apply, and it covers most (or all) of the class under
consideration, and few (or none) of those who fall outside
the class.
To a large degree we test definitions
through intuition. We pick up examples that we "know" fit
within a given catagory, and measure them against the
definition. If they don't fit, we either discard the
definition or develop a new understanding of the examples.
Each time someone has thrown examples your way, you've
applied your definition and tossed the candidate
"in" or "out," and in each case your judgment has been
consistently applied.
You've had no problem living with the consequences of
applying your definition.
Like many others on the list, I've
encountered instances in which the invocation of "Doherty's
Rule," hasn't "felt right;" it has either been too
restrictive or too loose. Consequently, I continue to tinker
around the edges of your choice of words, but overall, I'd
say you've nailed hardboiled and noir in a thoroughly tough
and colloquial manner.
Jim
Blue
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Apr 2002 EDT