On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:00:13PM -0500, Karen Thomas wrote: > >>>> stjarni is the shortest-standing equine at the barn he's at right now, > but i bet he's either first or second in weight-carrying ability (there's a > belgian who's enormous and big-boned, but i've heard draft > breeds are not the best for carrying heavy riders....) > > Not ALL Icelandic's are built to carry weight. At the same time that these > people are insisting that they aren't ponies, they are also breeding for a > "refined" horse. "Refined" is in the FEIF rules now, and if you look at the > show horses, you'll see it. So, semantics or whatever, they are changing > the breed to a less-capable-of-carrying-weight equine. Semantics may not > matter, but the results most certainly do.
then they'll end up more "horse"-like, and will you be happier with the terminology then? > And if it's JUST semantics, why do some of these people rush to deny that > they are ponies, even being offended at the idea? Is it only ok to call it > "semantics" when we'd like to see it stated correctly, but not when someone > is overstating the truth? I guess semantics is a one-way street? it's semantics all the way down. personally i think the dislike of the "pony" word and the preference for "horse" is etymological, but i've explained that before. the idea that one sort of wording is "correct" is exactly the kind of prescriptive way of looking at language that tells us english sentences oughtn't end in prepositions because latin sentences can't. --vicka
