Re:Incorrect casual assumptions in the history of science
by boomboomsubban on Wednesday September 27, 2023 @10:19PM
(#37684406)
>Obviously that hinges on the definition of "first-rank"
When figuring out the definition for a term used, the best source is the context it is used. In this case, Hypatia is the benchmark given for what qualifies as "first rank."
You can then argue the author is misusing that term, but that's a different argument that the article doesn't make.
Re:Incorrect casual assumptions in the history of science
by cwillu on Thursday September 28, 2023 @01:35AM
(#37685622)
My understanding is that they're synonyms, more or less:
“By the early years of King Charles I's reign, these four groups had been renamed to a numerical sequence. The royal ships were now graded as first rank, the great ships as second rank, the middling ships as third rank, and the small ships as fourth rank. Soon afterwards, the structure was again modified, with the term rank now being replaced by rate, and the former small ships now being sub-divided into fourth, fifth and sixth rates” --wikipedia
It was the person I'm replying to who used "first-rate" actually. I don't think there's a big difference in meaning between the two.
Usage examples show nuance in the meaning of a word that are not captured in the definition.