I would be more inclined to view that as a solution if it didn't seem like a restatement of an objection anticipated by Goodman in the original paper. The time

I would be more inclined to view that as a solution if it didn't seem like a restatement of an objection anticipated by Goodman in the original paper. The time-sensitive nature of 'grue' and 'bleen' arises because we take 'green' and 'blue' as basic, and define 'grue' and 'bleen' in relation to them. If we took 'grue' and 'bleen' to be basic, then our definitions of 'green' and 'blue' would be the ones with the additional time parameter. The idea of language as a hypothesis sounds a bit fishy in general. Not least because hypotheses generally need to be expressed in a language. Which language should we use to test other languages? I am also not sure whether it makes sense to take about languages as being false. And presumably, since it appears that English and Japanese constitute different hypotheses about colour, which one is the false hypothesis, and what constitutes good evidence against it?