Re: Modelworks H5
Posted by: john fehn (IP Logged)
Date: June 06, 2005 08:24AM
<HTML>OK, here i go, sticking my foot in my mouth again, but i have a little different take on this ‘replica thing: the good old Oxford English Dictionary, eh? (‘OED'). just like those stuffy old Oxfords, trying to tell us all how to use their language. :-)
no, but seriously folks, the ‘American Heritage Dictionary' defines ‘replica’ slightly differently:
-------------
“replica n. (1) a copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist. (2) any copy or close reproduction.
USAGE: 'Replica' in its strictest sense is reserved for a copy by the original artist. But it is widely accepted for any close reproduction...”
-------------
so in the strictest sense, you can't really have a replica of any car unless the car's primary purpose is in fact, ART, per se. however the second definition definitely works since ART is not mentioned.
well, so what? it's just that dictionaries are sometimes very slow to catch up. my 'OED' was last edited in 1927 and i bought it brand new in '75.
another glaring example: dictionaries say that people don’t have genders. people only have sexes. only WORDS have genders. but that’s not really the way the word is used these days.
so, so much for dictionaries. in this case i say ‘toss ‘em, folks. the fact is that in common daily parlance, people do in fact refer to close reproductions as replicas, using the second (american) dictionary definition of “any copy or close reproduction“.
so, what does it all mean? well, IMHO, what it all means is that dare ain’t nuttin’ wrong wid callin’ da Likamobile a replica. personally, i kind of like ‘replicant’! but that’s just one dude’s opinion. cheers.
John Féhn
Budapest</HTML>