Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site cfa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!wjh12!cfa!wyatt From: wyatt@cfa.UUCP (Bill Wyatt) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Re: Semantic Reversals Message-ID: <127@cfa.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 12:25:04 EST Article-I.D.: cfa.127 Posted: Fri Mar 1 12:25:04 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:18:30 EST References: <258@unm-cvax.UUCP> <486@ptsfa.UUCP> <22060@arizona.UUCP> <804@sdcsla.UUCP> Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Lines: 33 > In article <22060@arizona.UUCP> gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) writes: > >> One curious semantic reversal occurs in the expression: > >> The exception proves the rule. > >> Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California > > > >...[ other responses ] ... > Another simple reading of this is that the exception to the rule is > what brings to light (or underscores) the fact that there is a rule. > That is, you don't realize there is a rule at all until you come across > something which violates it. > -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science (I think these comments have already been made, but I had to put in my two cents...) "Proves" in the above statement harks back to the earlier meaning of "tests". The same meaning is behind "proof" in alcohol content of liquor, wine, beer, etc. - the distiller would test the alcohol content by seeing if it would burn, and what the color of the flame was. I'm not sure how sensitive this test was, or how high the proof has to be for liquor to burn, but I think it's 80+ proof, the traditional whiskey proof. Anyway, "the exception proves the rule" really means that APPARENT exceptions to a rule *test* that rule. If and only if you can explain why that "exception" is not really an exception does the rule stand. TRUE RULES DO NOT HAVE EXCEPTIONS! (except in politics, economics... :-)) The modern interpretation that this saying means "exceptions to some hypothesized rule prove it really is a rule" is a misinterpretation. Unfortunately too many people think it's somehow valid, and that's fuzzy thinking. -- Bill {harvard,genrad,allegra,ihnp4}!wjh12!cfa!wyatt