3 ms·

If he's a surgeon or a pianist he gets a pass. The exceptions that prove the rule.

by pnf 4y ago

mint2 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_ru... “ In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.[1]”
- pnf 4y ago
  I enjoy such etymologies as much as anyone but not sure I agree with you or Fowler's on this one. I mean, if you want to police grammar around HN, fine, but you're going to wear out the tips of your fingers. But aside from that there is also a kind of linguistic luddism in refusing the accept popular usage of idioms. Imagine demanding the same scrupulosity of someone learning English. They would be deprived of such lovelies as "begging the question" without being handed a dog-eared copy of Sophistical Refutations. Or how about "the proof is in the pudding"? No "alright" for you. You must promptly declare yourself when leaving a voicemail for your spouse: "Hello, it is I." So much lost, so little gained. "The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested." I don't find the objection here very credible. The usage you object to is "unfortunately the commonest". The common usage has the advantage of being the most obvious. The valences offered in the article don't seem that significant when it all boils down to what people mean by it, which is pretty well-understood. De gustibus...
  - mint2 4y ago
    Logic isn’t a popularity contest. The reference showed the usage was the logically flawed usage pattern of the term. You are right that nearly 100% of the term’s usage is the logically flawed one, that doesn’t make it persuasive, exactly the opposite: it’s a discourse red flag.
    - pnf 4y ago
      Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? Now I got to cut ya. It may be the case that most of the popular usage runs afoul of Fowler. But that was only to point out that, leaving aside some more or less confusing idioms, language doesn't stay put for the grammarians and dictionary writers, embrace change. My point was an aesthetic one. Regardless, abusus non tollit usum. In my own usage, I don't see the logical flaw you do. I gave special leave for surgeons and pianists to leave off changing their own tires. Consider if my post were in a legal code or on a sign. "Surgeons and pianists are exempted from tire-changing duty." Does that make it clearer? How is that different from what you're claiming is the "logically" correct use? I like Bacon's formulation: "In Lawes and Statutes of a compendious stile, extention may be made more freely; but in those Lawes which are punctuall in the enumeration of Cases Particular, more warily: for as exception strengthens the force of a Law, in Cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in Cases not enumerated." I punctually enumerated the limited exceptions (surgeons/pianists), thereby strengthening the force of the compendious rule (change your own tire, if reasonably able) in cases not excepted (able-bodied men). QED. On a meta-argument level, I agree logic isn't a popularity contest but I don't need to point out to you your logical sins of commission here: Appeal to extremes (reductio), appeal to false authority (verecundiam), slippery slope (reductio), ridicule (ridiculum), tradition (antiquitatem), intensional fallacy, false distinction...what else? I would add it's a "discourse red flag" when people confidently try to weaponize logical forms and legal maxims they can't handle. It's like watching a child fighting with a stick he can barely lift. It quickly becomes comical. Maybe you are missing your mistake because you're engaging in open-ended exceptionalism, the form that weakens the rule in cases not enumerated. In other words, because you proposed hypothetical disconfirming evidence (a bit ham-fistedly, tbh), maybe you are mentally carrying that forward in your own mind thinking you could come up with other examples that would further strengthen your case, but without making them explicit (minimal enumeration -- you proposed a list of exceptions with one element). Not very persuasive and actually a particularly obnoxious way to argue which I didn't point out initially because it's so common and has to be worked around in a spirit of charity (pro tip: you can't cavil with every objectionable point, there isn't time). Somehow people think pointing out instances of exceptions wins the day when all it does is suggest the need for enumerated exceptions. It may be a particularly American instinct because of a general bias to universalism (not possible in practice) consistent with ideals of egalitarian justice: One rule to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. The Decalogue is another good example of the American ideal law (Constitutionalism). Theoretically, you should be able to derive an entire legal code from such a short list of universal laws. But then why did they write Leviticus? I guess it wasn't enough. You can also see this spirit at work in the legacy of the English constitutional tradition of 'everything not forbidden is permitted' and the convention debates over whether or not to enumerate the Bill of Rights or fall back on the English tradition, yada yada yada... Thankfully, persuasive speech is a broader field than logic so I won't hold any of this against you. The fact that you like to try to argue credits you with me. All is forgiven. No harm, no Fowler. Ite in pace.

If he's a surgeon or a pianist he gets a pass. The exceptions that prove the rule.

by pnf 4y ago

If he's a surgeon or a pianist he gets a pass. The exceptions that prove the rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_ru... “ In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.[1]”

pnf 4y ago
I enjoy such etymologies as much as anyone but not sure I agree with you or Fowler's on this one. I mean, if you want to police grammar around HN, fine, but you're going to wear out the tips of your fingers. But aside from that there is also a kind of linguistic luddism in refusing the accept popular usage of idioms. Imagine demanding the same scrupulosity of someone learning English. They would be deprived of such lovelies as "begging the question" without being handed a dog-eared copy of Sophistical Refutations. Or how about "the proof is in the pudding"? No "alright" for you. You must promptly declare yourself when leaving a voicemail for your spouse: "Hello, it is I." So much lost, so little gained. "The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested." I don't find the objection here very credible. The usage you object to is "unfortunately the commonest". The common usage has the advantage of being the most obvious. The valences offered in the article don't seem that significant when it all boils down to what people mean by it, which is pretty well-understood. De gustibus...
- mint2 4y ago
  Logic isn’t a popularity contest. The reference showed the usage was the logically flawed usage pattern of the term. You are right that nearly 100% of the term’s usage is the logically flawed one, that doesn’t make it persuasive, exactly the opposite: it’s a discourse red flag.
  - pnf 4y ago
    Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? Now I got to cut ya. It may be the case that most of the popular usage runs afoul of Fowler. But that was only to point out that, leaving aside some more or less confusing idioms, language doesn't stay put for the grammarians and dictionary writers, embrace change. My point was an aesthetic one. Regardless, abusus non tollit usum. In my own usage, I don't see the logical flaw you do. I gave special leave for surgeons and pianists to leave off changing their own tires. Consider if my post were in a legal code or on a sign. "Surgeons and pianists are exempted from tire-changing duty." Does that make it clearer? How is that different from what you're claiming is the "logically" correct use? I like Bacon's formulation: "In Lawes and Statutes of a compendious stile, extention may be made more freely; but in those Lawes which are punctuall in the enumeration of Cases Particular, more warily: for as exception strengthens the force of a Law, in Cases not excepted; so enumeration weakens it, in Cases not enumerated." I punctually enumerated the limited exceptions (surgeons/pianists), thereby strengthening the force of the compendious rule (change your own tire, if reasonably able) in cases not excepted (able-bodied men). QED. On a meta-argument level, I agree logic isn't a popularity contest but I don't need to point out to you your logical sins of commission here: Appeal to extremes (reductio), appeal to false authority (verecundiam), slippery slope (reductio), ridicule (ridiculum), tradition (antiquitatem), intensional fallacy, false distinction...what else? I would add it's a "discourse red flag" when people confidently try to weaponize logical forms and legal maxims they can't handle. It's like watching a child fighting with a stick he can barely lift. It quickly becomes comical. Maybe you are missing your mistake because you're engaging in open-ended exceptionalism, the form that weakens the rule in cases not enumerated. In other words, because you proposed hypothetical disconfirming evidence (a bit ham-fistedly, tbh), maybe you are mentally carrying that forward in your own mind thinking you could come up with other examples that would further strengthen your case, but without making them explicit (minimal enumeration -- you proposed a list of exceptions with one element). Not very persuasive and actually a particularly obnoxious way to argue which I didn't point out initially because it's so common and has to be worked around in a spirit of charity (pro tip: you can't cavil with every objectionable point, there isn't time). Somehow people think pointing out instances of exceptions wins the day when all it does is suggest the need for enumerated exceptions. It may be a particularly American instinct because of a general bias to universalism (not possible in practice) consistent with ideals of egalitarian justice: One rule to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. The Decalogue is another good example of the American ideal law (Constitutionalism). Theoretically, you should be able to derive an entire legal code from such a short list of universal laws. But then why did they write Leviticus? I guess it wasn't enough. You can also see this spirit at work in the legacy of the English constitutional tradition of 'everything not forbidden is permitted' and the convention debates over whether or not to enumerate the Bill of Rights or fall back on the English tradition, yada yada yada... Thankfully, persuasive speech is a broader field than logic so I won't hold any of this against you. The fact that you like to try to argue credits you with me. All is forgiven. No harm, no Fowler. Ite in pace.