[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Micro Anubias -- Micro, Dwarf, stunted, immature,
- To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
- Subject: Re: Micro Anubias -- Micro, Dwarf, stunted, immature,
- From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <200209301948.g8UJm1621701 at acme_actwin.com>
Someone asked about dwarf sized anubias going for $25 and
wanted to know what they are. Being very literal that
morning, I wrote back "expensive."
Then Guy said, in part:
> BTW "expensive" is a relative concept. I can get a large
> red maple at Home
> Depot for less than $20, . . .
Expensive is relative? Actually, it's relatives that are
expensive, not the other way around. ;-)
But in the family of money terms, "Expensive" is relative
only to "inexpensive." The terms are what are called
contrast dependent notions -- the one makes sense only in
contrast to the other. And the terms come in degrees, so
But don't confuse "expensive" and "inexpensive" with
"affordable" and "unaffordable." The applicability of the
latter pair of terms *is relative* to how much a person is
*able* to pay. *But* whether you can spare the scratch or
not, $25 is expensive. Something is expensive if it costs
a lot, some non-negligible figure larger than zero. The
$1,500 bonsai is much more expensive than the $25 plant --
a flight to the moon on gossamer wings, if it ever becomes
practical, will undoubtedly be even more expensive.
Technically, if the plant is not for sale, it is priceless.
If only the plant grew faster, we could replace the
Keynesian multiplier with an agrarian divisor.
Scott H., whose chekcing account is neither dwarf nor
stunted but merely micro.
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!