Return to Question

I have a specific word in mind, but I'd rather not use it to avoid potential bias. I'll edit and post the word if I need to.

Hypothetically, I have a word, "CanHoldWater", defined by Merriam-Webster as

Adjective
A) capable of holding water
B) In biology: capable of holding water overnight

So, if we know a ficus can 'hold water', but just not overnight. Is the statement: "This is a CanHoldWater ficus." true or false?

I would believe that you can use the word intending the second definition, but that the primary definition shouldn't be violated. Is this just a semantics argument that has no answer? Are there written or unwritten rules to creating definitions with this type of scenario in mind?

If this isn't a sufficient example, I'll provide the actual word after some input. In my mind it mirrors the problem with the actual word in my view pretty well, but it's politically loaded.

The word I'm asking about is: Viable

Defined by Merrriam-Webster as:

a: capable of living

b: of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus

If we know a fetus of 1 week is viable (because many 1 week fetuses have become living people) - but we're not viable before 26 weeks according to the second definition (because we couldn't survive outside the womb), then these 2 definitions are at odds, for the same word.

I have a specific word in mind, but I'd rather not use it to avoid potential bias. I'll edit and post the word if I need to.

Hypothetically, I have a word, "CanHoldWater", defined by Merriam-Webster as

Adjective
A) capable of holding water
B) In biology: capable of holding water overnight

So, if we know a ficus can 'hold water', but just not overnight. Is the statement: "This is a CanHoldWater ficus." true or false?

I would believe that you can use the word intending the second definition, but that the primary definition shouldn't be violated. Is this just a semantics argument that has no answer? Are there written or unwritten rules to creating definitions with this type of scenario in mind?

If this isn't a sufficient example, I'll provide the actual word after some input. In my mind it mirrors the problem with the actual word in my view pretty well, but it's politically loaded.

The word I'm asking about is: Viable

Defined by Merrriam-Webster as:

a: capable of living

b: of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus

If we know a fetus of 1 week is viable by the first definition (because many 1 week fetuses have become living people) - but we're not viable before 26 weeks according to the second definition (because we couldn't survive outside the womb), then these 2 definitions are at odds, for the same word.

I have a specific word in mind, but I'd rather not use it to avoid potential bias. I'll edit and post the word if I need to.

Hypothetically, I have a word, "CanHoldWater", defined by Merriam-Webster as

Adjective
A) capable of holding water
B) In biology: capable of holding water overnight

So, if we know a ficus can 'hold water', but just not overnight. Is the statement: "This is a CanHoldWater ficus." true or false?

I would believe that you can use the word intending the second definition, but that the primary definition shouldn't be violated. Is this just a semantics argument that has no answer? Are there written or unwritten rules to creating definitions with this type of scenario in mind?

If this isn't a sufficient example, I'll provide the actual word after some input. In my mind it mirrors the problem with the actual word in my view pretty well, but it's politically loaded.

I have a specific word in mind, but I'd rather not use it to avoid potential bias. I'll edit and post the word if I need to.

Hypothetically, I have a word, "CanHoldWater", defined by Merriam-Webster as

Adjective
A) capable of holding water
B) In biology: capable of holding water overnight

So, if we know a ficus can 'hold water', but just not overnight. Is the statement: "This is a CanHoldWater ficus." true or false?

I would believe that you can use the word intending the second definition, but that the primary definition shouldn't be violated. Is this just a semantics argument that has no answer? Are there written or unwritten rules to creating definitions with this type of scenario in mind?

If this isn't a sufficient example, I'll provide the actual word after some input. In my mind it mirrors the problem with the actual word in my view pretty well, but it's politically loaded.

The word I'm asking about is: Viable

Defined by Merrriam-Webster as:

a: capable of living

b: of a fetus : having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus

If we know a fetus of 1 week is viable (because many 1 week fetuses have become living people) - but we're not viable before 26 weeks according to the second definition (because we couldn't survive outside the womb), then these 2 definitions are at odds, for the same word.

I have a specific word in mind, but I'd rather not use it to avoid potential bias. I'll edit and post the word if I need to.

Hypothetically, I have a word, "CanHoldWater", defined by Merriam-Webster as

Adjective
A) capable of holding water
B) In biology: capable of holding water overnight

So, if we know a ficus can 'hold water', but just not overnight. Is the statement: "This is a CanHoldWater ficus." true or false?

I would believe that you can use the word intending the second definition, but that the primary definition shouldn't be violated. Is this just a semantics argument that has no answer? Are there written or unwritten rules to creating definitions with this type of scenario in mind?

If this isn't a sufficient example, I'll provide the actual word after some input. In my mind it mirrors the problem with the actual word in my view pretty well, but it's politically loaded.

I have a specific word in mind, but I'd rather not use it to avoid potential bias. I'll edit and post the word if I need to.

Hypothetically, I have a word, "CanHoldWater", defined by Merriam-Webster as

Adjective
A) capable of holding water
B) In biology: capable of holding water overnight

So, if we know a ficus can 'hold water', but just not overnight. Is the statement: "This is a CanHoldWater ficus." true or false?

I would believe that you can use the word intending the second definition, but that the primary definition shouldn't be violated. Is this just a semantics argument that has no answer? Are there written or unwritten rules to creating definitions with this type of scenario in mind?

If this isn't a sufficient example, I'll provide the actual word after some input. In my mind it mirrors the problem with the actual word in my view pretty well, but it's politically loaded.