04-03-2018, 09:43 AM
From a purely semantic point of view, it's fine to ascribe 'character' to something inanimate. See 1.1 and 1.2 from the [url=https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/character]Oxford Dictionary:
Quote:1. The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual—‘running away was not in keeping with her character’
1.1 The distinctive nature of something—‘gas lamps give the area its character’
1.2 The quality of being individual in an interesting or unusual way—‘the island is full of character’
1.3 Strength and originality in a person's nature—‘she had character as well as beauty’
1.4 A person's good reputation—‘to what do I owe this attack on my character?’
On that basis it is probably snide to ascribe character only to flawed inanimate things. But my experience has been that's the general usage of the term in relation to them. I'm of the view that, by definition, all motorcycles must have character. I'm very happy indeed with the character of my CB1100.
Quote:1. The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual—‘running away was not in keeping with her character’
1.1 The distinctive nature of something—‘gas lamps give the area its character’
1.2 The quality of being individual in an interesting or unusual way—‘the island is full of character’
1.3 Strength and originality in a person's nature—‘she had character as well as beauty’
1.4 A person's good reputation—‘to what do I owe this attack on my character?’
On that basis it is probably snide to ascribe character only to flawed inanimate things. But my experience has been that's the general usage of the term in relation to them. I'm of the view that, by definition, all motorcycles must have character. I'm very happy indeed with the character of my CB1100.