fast
Contributor
I would say that a boiled egg is an egg that has been boiled, but would you say that an egg that has been boiled is a boiled egg? Yes, I would too (reluctantly), but hidden is a subtle ambiguity that is masked by language where there is a sense in which not every instance of an egg that's been boiled is an instance of a boiled egg.
If I boil an egg for twenty minutes, then I will have a boiled egg in both senses of the term, but if I boil an egg for only twenty seconds, then I will have a boiled egg in only one of the two senses. That shows that one sense is not the same as the other.
There is more to a boiled egg than merely an egg being boiled. An egg that has been boiled for only twenty seconds lacks the texture that we're all familiar with a boiled egg having. One may counter argue and say that it's a matter of degree, but that only applies to one of the senses.
When you look at the words, what do you see? Do you see two one-worded terms, or do you see one two-worded term? If you see two one-worded terms, then you see an adjective followed by a noun. In this sense, even an egg that has been boiled for only twenty seconds is a boiled egg.
Just as the meaning of words can change over time, so too can multi-worded terms take on a life of their own and change meaning over time independent of the meaning of constituent terms, but my argument isn't based on that. Rather, we should recognize that "boiled" is a descriptive convenience. It aptly describes in shorthand the final product.
When I look at the term, I see a two-worded term and treat the entire term as a noun, and that's exactly how I think I should view it in many contexts. If a cooking instructor emphasing "boiled" when inquiring about (oh say) a scrambled egg being taking out of boiling water and asks if it's a boiled egg, then the answer can be yes or no depending on the sense. If he means "is this an egg that's been boiled", then yes, it's a boiled egg (adjective and noun), but if he means "it's what we all know as a boiled egg", then no, it's not a boiled egg (two-worded noun); after all, it's a scrambled egg that so happens to have been boiled.
At any rate, this post is inspired by the recent thread discussing "empty space." I didn't participate in the thread, and I don't know enough about it to make a judgement one way or the other, but I do believe that the notion "'empty space' is not empty" doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction if there is a difference between empty space (noun and adjective) and empty space (a term in its own right with a current meaning not dependent on the literal meaning of the constituent words).
If I boil an egg for twenty minutes, then I will have a boiled egg in both senses of the term, but if I boil an egg for only twenty seconds, then I will have a boiled egg in only one of the two senses. That shows that one sense is not the same as the other.
There is more to a boiled egg than merely an egg being boiled. An egg that has been boiled for only twenty seconds lacks the texture that we're all familiar with a boiled egg having. One may counter argue and say that it's a matter of degree, but that only applies to one of the senses.
When you look at the words, what do you see? Do you see two one-worded terms, or do you see one two-worded term? If you see two one-worded terms, then you see an adjective followed by a noun. In this sense, even an egg that has been boiled for only twenty seconds is a boiled egg.
Just as the meaning of words can change over time, so too can multi-worded terms take on a life of their own and change meaning over time independent of the meaning of constituent terms, but my argument isn't based on that. Rather, we should recognize that "boiled" is a descriptive convenience. It aptly describes in shorthand the final product.
When I look at the term, I see a two-worded term and treat the entire term as a noun, and that's exactly how I think I should view it in many contexts. If a cooking instructor emphasing "boiled" when inquiring about (oh say) a scrambled egg being taking out of boiling water and asks if it's a boiled egg, then the answer can be yes or no depending on the sense. If he means "is this an egg that's been boiled", then yes, it's a boiled egg (adjective and noun), but if he means "it's what we all know as a boiled egg", then no, it's not a boiled egg (two-worded noun); after all, it's a scrambled egg that so happens to have been boiled.
At any rate, this post is inspired by the recent thread discussing "empty space." I didn't participate in the thread, and I don't know enough about it to make a judgement one way or the other, but I do believe that the notion "'empty space' is not empty" doesn't necessarily entail a contradiction if there is a difference between empty space (noun and adjective) and empty space (a term in its own right with a current meaning not dependent on the literal meaning of the constituent words).