These questions seem to be a bit grasping. It's clear from GP's post that the problem with 'modern' in this context is that it lacks semantic meaning within th

These questions seem to be a bit grasping. It's clear from GP's post that the problem with 'modern' in this context is that it lacks semantic meaning within the given sentence. As 'modern' has no domain-specific denotative definition, one must turn to its connotation — of some quality that is only available in newer products, not prior ones. On the other hand, to simply say that something is 'new' in technology is clear: it is a recently-developed or recently-published effort, free of insinuation that there is anything better or worse than what came before it. 'Modern', on the other hand, implies some sort of quality that might not be apparent in prior art. > If they called it "postmodern", would that be acceptable? Why would that be acceptable? That would carry even less clear meaning. > BTW, do you propose renaming the Museums of Modern Art? In that context, 'modern' has a domain-specific meaning — art made past 1860.