27-10-2016, 08:26 PM
What was meant is that while there is (apparently) no consensus between all of us that the VMS is "vellum", consensus will be there if we chacracterize it in a more general way - namely, as "parchment", since "vellum" is a subset of "parchment". Vellum is always parchment (while parchment is not always vellum).
Characterizing the VMS as "parchment" does not negate the statement that it is vellum, it just considers the latter statement as indefinite.
It's much like that we all (seem to, there's been no poll yet
) agree that the VMS is a "manuscript", but there will be much disagreement if we descend to more specifical definitions - e.g., if one characterizes it as a "herbal", then many will disagree.
Or, as another example, like -JKP- points out, if there's no agreement upon whether a book is a dictionary, the safe way is to speak of a "book", and not of a "dictionary".
Characterizing the VMS as "parchment" does not negate the statement that it is vellum, it just considers the latter statement as indefinite.
It's much like that we all (seem to, there's been no poll yet
) agree that the VMS is a "manuscript", but there will be much disagreement if we descend to more specifical definitions - e.g., if one characterizes it as a "herbal", then many will disagree.Or, as another example, like -JKP- points out, if there's no agreement upon whether a book is a dictionary, the safe way is to speak of a "book", and not of a "dictionary".