Well given that the definition of a statue is "something large" yes, it can't be simultaniously small & large. I'm never difficult, it's very easy to get along with me as long as you know I'm always right Anyways, what exactly were we on about.
Everything is relative! A statue might be small or large compared to a human, but compared to a planet both are tiny. Btw in German we call small statues "Statuette", which indeed gives a hint that statues are supposed to be small. My dictionary says that in English the word "figurine" is supposed to be the equivalent.
In the definition which you provided, a definition that is not quite universal... This definition does not include the requirement of a statue having to be large.
Only because it doesn't support your narrative. I'm pretty sure that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a good source.
I was refering to how your screenshot doesn't even load for me. Hence my screenshot of your post instead of an actual quote
Tried it in multiple browsers, either nothing shows up or one of this little thumbnails that shows an image is supposed to be there.
Not to throw fuel on the fire but... And it’s from the Oxford Dictionary, which given we invented this f***ed up mess of a language...
So we've established that there are slight variations in definitions. For the record, the word "especially" actually implies that there can exist statues that are smaller. "Especially" is not the same as "exclusively". Another definition
Nonetheless, given we are apparently going by implications the key implication of the two definitions is that a statue is for equal or larger than life size depictions, whilst a statuette is for smaller than life size depictions. Meanwhile, to use your Dictionary of choice: The fact it uses the key adjective “small” would imply that typically statues are large and the existence of a “small statue” is sufficiently differentiated from the norm to justify it having the different name. And the fact that said different name exists means that the two are separate enough to be broadly considered separate entities; thus, the moment a statue is small it could be considered to cease to be a statue and instead become a statuette. For a statue to remain a statue and not become a statuette it must not be small, and given not being small preempts it being large, or at least life size, it therefore not unreasonable to say that for a statue to be considered a statue, it must be fairly large. Thus, being large can be considered part of the definition of a statue. (I may be taking this a tad too seriously) On an unrelated note, why is there such thing as the Cambridge Dictionary?! Everyone knows that Oxford is the Englishy one; a Cambridge periodic table or something similar would make sense, but given the inevitable association of Cambridge with Oxford, all it ends up coming out as is a feeble attempt at furthering the rivalry with an “I wish I was the Oxford Dictionary”!
This actually proves my point. "A small statue". So a statue can be small. A statuette is a subcategory of statues which is defined by being small. So a statue can be large or small, but a statuette can only be small. I believe the confusion is stemming from a misunderstanding of the suffix "ette". "Ette" is a suffix that attached to some nouns to make a new noun that describes a small version of the original noun (in other instances it is also used to make a word feminine... but that is neither here nor there). For instance: A kitchen can be large or small, but a kitchenette is a term used specifically to describe a small kitchen. However, a kitchenette is still a kitchen (but a kitchen is not necessarily a kitchenette). By the same token, a statuette specifically describes a small statue, but it is still a statue! This has to be the most boring thread on LO. Class dismissed. I'm moving on to better things and redeploying my previously stated strategy in regards to this thread.
wohoo allies, surrender @NIGHTBRINGER you can't take us all And yeah, given that statuette is a seperate classification in english, it would indeed be reasonable to concluce that we do not play with statues as they're first and foremost miniatures and thus small by definition and belong in this seperate catagory. Well that's no fun, what kinda nonsense are we supposed to discuss then? There's no such thing as taking irrelevant discussions too seriously
Yes, but the fact that the two separate nouns exist implies they are distinct enough to be considered separate entities - a small statue is distinct from a statue. So when referring to a small statue, in can be expected you will will refer to it as such or as a statuette, not simply as a statue. This separation between the terms predisposes statue unqualified to, at least in colloquial terms, not be small and therefore be at least fairly large, or else the phrase small statue or “statuette” world instead be used. Therefore, whilst yes technically it can probably be argued that statues could be small, at that point it would be referred to as such (and therefore be a statuette instead) and in practice, and certainly in the context of the debate, the use of statue unqualified can reasonably be expected to refer to something large. I have to say, for a debate on the semantics of a noun in general conversation, I am probably enjoying this far too much to be healthy!