>I do not mean this to be offensive, but of course bayonets are still sharp when their edges are not ground by use. It can't be offensive. I might have been un

>I do not mean this to be offensive, but of course bayonets are still sharp when their edges are not ground by use. It can't be offensive. I might have been unclear but we actively use one of them. The other is a French stabbing sword-bayonet unsuited for cutting. >But let's not forget it's a story. I'm sure some people are better or worse at butchering sheep, but a genericism does not add anything. I don't know where you're seeing a genericism because it's rather precise: you feel, as in tactile feeling, where there is a gap and you cut. I understand what you mean though by "not true but useful" and the practice of a "folk taxonomy" of sorts to create a new class called "useful but not true" to avoid polluting your "true" branch. I remember I had detected a pattern that helped me in high school chemistry where I made up a rule based on the Carbon count. It held perfectly for the low carbon count stuff we were studying at the time but I knew it couldn't be generalized. I guess the scope of something, folk taxonomy, mnemonic devices, etc. are also examples of "useful but not true".