4 ms·

The word "prove" has largely changed its meaning, it doesn't mean "test" anymore, although a few usages from previous centuries survive, such as military "provi

The word "prove" has largely changed its meaning, it doesn't mean "test" anymore, although a few usages from previous centuries survive, such as military "proving grounds." So yes, it's very interesting that an old phrase that once meant 'a circumstance that challenges or makes one doubt a rule', gave birth to the modern phrase that means pretty much the opposite: "makes one more confident of the rule, in the end, after all." But the latter phrase exists, the former is part of history. Language changes constantly, and meanings often flip from one century to another. The previous meaning of "prove" doesn't obviate the modern usage inside or outside of the phrase in question or turn the clock back. That particular horse escaped the barn, long, long ago along with tens of thousands of other changes in the last few centuries. "Probable" existed before probability theory did, and it didn't refer to odds or math; it just meant "respectable." I could follow your own suit, I suppose, and compliment you by calling your comment "smart", since that word used to mean "painful" in olde english and you prefer the old ways. But I won't. (I'll just say your comment was interesting, and not quite the full story.) I roll with the common currency: language as it is. Print greatly slowed these sorts of changes, and the internet will slow them even more, of course, as the decades and centuries roll on.

MereInterest 9y ago
Most idioms I am fine with shifting, or being nonsensical when broken by time. I couldn't care less if people use "I could care less", as there is no mistaken meaning. My problem with the current use of "exception proves the rule" is that it is factually untrue. Not only that, but unlike other factually untrue phrases such as "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.", its current meaning promotes bad science. Exceptions are evidence against the rule, unless there is reason to discount the exceptions. In general, I try to correct it in order to give the benefit of the doubt. Either somebody is misusing a phrase, which is a charitable interpretation, or somebody has a fundamentally flawed idea of how evidence works, which is rather uncharitable.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I thought I explained my usage pretty well. You should go back and re-read it, and also take a look at the Wikipedia page I reference, where it's explained in more detail. Basically, you can name the exceptions off the top of your head, but you could never do that with the non-exceptions because they're so numerous. Kind of like how in your parking example, you don't need to name the hours that parking is allowed, because it's a rule. It's always allowed, with some exceptions. You only need to point out the exceptions. I would take your charitable interpretation and say you're misunderstanding the phrase. Since there are examples of this usage all over the Internet and a very long Wikipedia page detailing the various forms, I hope we can move past this wildly off-topic conversation.

MereInterest 9y ago

Most idioms I am fine with shifting, or being nonsensical when broken by time. I couldn't care less if people use "I could care less", as there is no mistaken meaning. My problem with the current use of "exception proves the rule" is that it is factually untrue. Not only that, but unlike other factually untrue phrases such as "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.", its current meaning promotes bad science. Exceptions are evidence against the rule, unless there is reason to discount the exceptions. In general, I try to correct it in order to give the benefit of the doubt. Either somebody is misusing a phrase, which is a charitable interpretation, or somebody has a fundamentally flawed idea of how evidence works, which is rather uncharitable.

freehunter 9y ago
I thought I explained my usage pretty well. You should go back and re-read it, and also take a look at the Wikipedia page I reference, where it's explained in more detail. Basically, you can name the exceptions off the top of your head, but you could never do that with the non-exceptions because they're so numerous. Kind of like how in your parking example, you don't need to name the hours that parking is allowed, because it's a rule. It's always allowed, with some exceptions. You only need to point out the exceptions. I would take your charitable interpretation and say you're misunderstanding the phrase. Since there are examples of this usage all over the Internet and a very long Wikipedia page detailing the various forms, I hope we can move past this wildly off-topic conversation.