...I'm going to go out onSo, let's see, you've got her for "saying it" and you've got her for
a limb and infer that "we" means black people, but notice how she keeps
it just vague enough that she could deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
...
On 8/22/2024 4:09 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
[snip Michelle Obama's speech-excerpt and commentary]
...I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that "we" means blackSo, let's see, you've got her for "saying it" and you've got her for
people, but notice how she keeps it just vague enough that she could
deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
...
"not saying it". Devastating argument. Say, I bet you're also a big
fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
In article <va87un$iiui$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2024 4:09 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
[snip Michelle Obama's speech-excerpt and commentary]
...I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that "we" means blackSo, let's see, you've got her for "saying it" and you've got her for
people, but notice how she keeps it just vague enough that she could
deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
...
"not saying it". Devastating argument. Say, I bet you're also a big
fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
What? Suddenly 'code words', 'dog whistles' and 'pig sirens' aren't a
thing now? Weird how they pop up whenever you need them to be for a rhetorical win but don't exist when it's inconvenient.
And after all I wrote in that post, *this* is the only thing you found
worthy of comment.
Figures, since the rest is pretty damn indefensible.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:08:22 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <va87un$iiui$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >wrote:
On 8/22/2024 4:09 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
[snip Michelle Obama's speech-excerpt and commentary]
...I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that "we" means black
people, but notice how she keeps it just vague enough that she
could deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
Except that she clearly didn't mean that. She clearly was talking
about people who start on first base as Donald Trump did with having
millions given to him to start his career.
In article <va87un$iiui$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >wrote:
On 8/22/2024 4:09 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
[snip Michelle Obama's speech-excerpt and commentary]
...I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that "we" means black
people, but notice how she keeps it just vague enough that she could
deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
So, let's see, you've got her for "saying it" and you've got her for
"not saying it". Devastating argument. Say, I bet you're also a big
fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
What? Suddenly 'code words', 'dog whistles' and 'pig sirens' aren't a
thing now? Weird how they pop up whenever you need them to be for a >rhetorical win but don't exist when it's inconvenient.
And after all I wrote in that post, *this* is the only thing you found
worthy of comment.
Figures, since the rest is pretty damn indefensible.
., . .
The "inability to build generational wealth" is a constant talking point
from the "everything is racist/systemic racism/BLM" crowd.
That's one of those dog whistle code words where everyone knows what's
being referenced.
The moment she mentioned "generational wealth", everyone knew what she
was talking about.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
., . .
The "inability to build generational wealth" is a constant talking point >>from the "everything is racist/systemic racism/BLM" crowd.
My father inherited nothing from his parents, or maybe a nominal amount.
My mother's mother survived my mother's father. There were some savings.
She spent her last years in a nursing home. One guess as to where the
cash went.
My parents lived their lives without inherited wealth. I have no idea
how they managed that.
That's one of those dog whistle code words where everyone knows what's >>being referenced.
The moment she mentioned "generational wealth", everyone knew what she
was talking about.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:14:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
., . .
The "inability to build generational wealth" is a constant talking point
from the "everything is racist/systemic racism/BLM" crowd.
My father inherited nothing from his parents, or maybe a nominal amount.
My mother's mother survived my mother's father. There were some savings.
She spent her last years in a nursing home. One guess as to where the
cash went.
My parents lived their lives without inherited wealth. I have no idea
how they managed that.
It was the same with my family. I expect it is the same for most
people. At best what some manage is to have parents that bought and
own their own home that can then be given to their children on their
passing.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
I read the excerpt you quoted, and it didn't even *occur* to me that
she was addressing anyone but us 99-percenters. Your subsequent
unmasking of her nefarious subtext took me quite by surprise.
You wrote:
"[Michelle] said "we" don't get second and third chances when we
lose our businesses or bankrupt ourselves, we don't get to lie and
cheat our way to the top. So what she's actually saying is that white
people are liars, cheaters, they expect everything to be handed to
them, white
people are constantly bailed out of all their problems by the system
that's been created to serve them."
When I hear a Dem talking of bankruptcies, lying, and cheating, I
assume they're talking about Donald Trump, not the skin color I share
with him.
Such an enormous disconnect says pretty clearly that I'm not your
target audience, i.e., not open to hearing that Michelle Obama (whose
husband is half-white) is insidiously trying to foment a race war that
would do little for anyone but Conservatives.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:14:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
., . .
The "inability to build generational wealth" is a constant talking point >>> from the "everything is racist/systemic racism/BLM" crowd.
My father inherited nothing from his parents, or maybe a nominal amount.
My mother's mother survived my mother's father. There were some savings.
She spent her last years in a nursing home. One guess as to where the
cash went.
My parents lived their lives without inherited wealth. I have no idea
how they managed that.
It was the same with my family. I expect it is the same for most
people. At best what some manage is to have parents that bought and
own their own home that can then be given to their children on their
passing.
That's one of those dog whistle code words where everyone knows what's
being referenced.
The moment she mentioned "generational wealth", everyone knew what she
was talking about.
In article <va87un$iiui$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/22/2024 4:09 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
[snip Michelle Obama's speech-excerpt and commentary]
...I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that "we" means blackSo, let's see, you've got her for "saying it" and you've got her for
people, but notice how she keeps it just vague enough that she could
deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
...
"not saying it". Devastating argument. Say, I bet you're also a big
fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
What? Suddenly 'code words', 'dog whistles' and 'pig sirens' aren't a
thing now? Weird how they pop up whenever you need them to be for a rhetorical win but don't exist when it's inconvenient.
And after all I wrote in that post, *this* is the only thing you found
worthy of comment.
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
In article <bnifcjdk9mfk1uded19p9bl461au6fkl02@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:08:22 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <va87un$iiui$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 8/22/2024 4:09 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
[snip Michelle Obama's speech-excerpt and commentary]
...I'm going to go out on a limb and infer that "we" means black
people, but notice how she keeps it just vague enough that she
could deny it if the backlash was strong enough.
Except that she clearly didn't mean that. She clearly was talking
about people who start on first base as Donald Trump did with having
millions given to him to start his career.
The "inability to build generational wealth" is a constant talking point
from the "everything is racist/systemic racism/BLM" crowd.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:14:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
., . .
The "inability to build generational wealth" is a constant talking point >>>> from the "everything is racist/systemic racism/BLM" crowd.
My father inherited nothing from his parents, or maybe a nominal amount. >>> My mother's mother survived my mother's father. There were some savings. >>> She spent her last years in a nursing home. One guess as to where the
cash went.
My parents lived their lives without inherited wealth. I have no idea
how they managed that.
It was the same with my family. I expect it is the same for most
people. At best what some manage is to have parents that bought and
own their own home that can then be given to their children on their
passing.
Or to the IRS.
We have an ad for Kamala. They are running constantly here that says she’s going to arrange it so you can own your own house which will let you put
your children through college. She never actually connects the dots on how that works.
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
On 2024-08-23 16:18:31 +0000, moviePig said:
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"... >>>>
I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
"If you are making a general statement and you say that
something is the exception that proves the rule, you
mean that although it seems to contradict your
statement, in most other cases your statement will be
true." <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule>
On 8/23/2024 6:30 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-08-23 16:18:31 +0000, moviePig said:
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"... >>>>>
I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
"If you are making a general statement and you say that
something is the exception that proves the rule, you
mean that although it seems to contradict your
statement, in most other cases your statement will be
true."
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule>
Afaik, the saying's rationale is that, if we agree that some instance is
an exception, it's an acknowledgement of the converse rule-of-thumb.
But, semantically, the saying itself is still spaghetti.
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"...
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/23/2024 6:30 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-08-23 16:18:31 +0000, moviePig said:
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"... >>>>>>
I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
"If you are making a general statement and you say that
something is the exception that proves the rule, you
mean that although it seems to contradict your
statement, in most other cases your statement will be
true."
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule>
Afaik, the saying's rationale is that, if we agree that some instance is
an exception, it's an acknowledgement of the converse rule-of-thumb.
But, semantically, the saying itself is still spaghetti.
https://www.straightdope.com/21341901/what-s-the-meaning-of-the-expression-that-s-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule
What’s the meaning of the expression, “That’s the exception that proves the
rule?”
By Cecil Adams Oct 24, 1991, 11:00pm MST
SHARE
COPY LINK
Dear Cecil: I’ve heard the following expression from people all over the country and on television. It makes absolutely no sense: “That’s the exception that proves the rule.” Is this a bastardization of some other phrase? If not, what does it mean? Lorraine N., East Weymouth,
Massachusetts
910802.gif
Illustration by Slug Signorino
Cecil replies:
Don’t you get it? The whole point of this saying is that it doesn’t make sense. It’s what you say to confound your enemies when your argument has been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. From the point
of view of advancing the debate it’s about one jump ahead of “yo mama,” but
it beats standing there with your mouth open.
To be sure, a few scholarly types have tried to make excuses for “The exception proves the rule,” as the quotation books usually phrase it. They say it comes from the medieval Latin aphorism Exceptio probat regulam.
Probat means “prove” in the sense of “test,” as in “proving ground” or “the
proof is in the pudding.” So “the exception proves the rule” means a close
look at exceptions helps us determine a rule’s validity.
If Latinists understand it that way, however, they’re pretty much alone. I’ve looked up citations of this saying dating back to 1664, and in every case it was used in the brain-dead manner we’re accustomed to today — that
is, to suggest that non-conforming cases, by the mere fact of their existence, somehow confirm or support a generalization. Obviously they do nothing of the kind. We like to think proverbs become proverbial because they’re true; this one is an exception. It certainly doesn’t prove the rule.
Exceptional stupidity
Dear Cecil:
I was surprised to see the question in your column about the exception proving the rule because I had always assumed the saying came from the “rule” that “there’s an exception to every rule.” Thus the mere existence
of an exception to a rule proves the validity of the rule. No?
— V.M., Berkeley, California
No. If all it takes for a rule to be valid is that it have an exception, every rule would be valid — except, of course, rules without exceptions. Obviously not an argument you want to take very far.
Exceptional stupidity, part two
Dear Cecil:
Your reply to the question, “What does `that’s the exception that proves the rule’ mean?” was not quite right. The quote refers to a logician’s axiom: that which can never be false can likewise never be true. If a statement cannot be admitted ever to be false, then it is a concealed tautology, i.e., a dogma. An instance of a proposition’s not-being-the-case serves to affirm its existential validity, assuming it does not commit a violation of the rules of logic. Both logical validity AND existential verification are required for one to justly assert that such-and-such is
true …
— Max L., Santa Barbara, California
You’re talking about “falsifiability,” Max. If no conceivable evidence could prove a given statement false, then the statement is meaningless. For example, if a psychic comes out with predictions so vague they can’t possibly be proven wrong, then the predictions are baloney. Note, however, that contrary evidence merely has to be conceivable. If contrary evidence actually exists, the statement is more than falsifiable, it’s false. To put it as clearly as I can, THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXCEPTION DOES NOT VALIDATE THE FREAKING RULE! Quite the opposite. But anybody who can sling around phrases like “existential validity” deserves credit for trying.
Part three and counting
Dear Cecil:
OK, OK, I acknowledge your general brilliance, but I can’t stand it another minute. The appropriate provenance of the saying “It’s the exception that proves the rule” is psychology, not logic. You can have a rule without an exception, but you can’t have an exception without a rule. Therefore, if something appears to be an exception, that indicates that a rule must
exist. If you reflexively think of something as an exception, then you can infer that you’ve already, perhaps unconsciously, postulated a rule. Perceptually, the exception throws the rule into relief. It’s analogous to, “It’s turning on the light that proves you were in the dark.” Read it as
“It’s the [recognition of an] exception that proves the [existence of a] rule.” Geez, it’s just a saying, and not a bad one at that.
— Kyle Gann, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
What is this, proverb as Rorschach test? Everybody I’ve heard from has a different take on this. There is nothing in the literature or common experience to support your farfetched interpretation.
The last word on exceptions
Dear Cecil:
I hate to have to correct Cecil Adams, but the business about “the exception proves the rule” in the latest Straight Dope seems way wide of the mark. The proverb’s meaning must be expounded not in the context of natural or psychological law but of civil law. Alan Bliss, in A Dictionary
of Words and Phrases in Current English, has the following to say about the origin of this phrase: “Exception probat regulam [Lat.], the exception proves the rule. A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio
probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis — `the fact that certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is valid in all other cases.’”
The application is this. Suppose a law is stated in such a way as to
include an exception, e.g., “Parking is prohibited on this street from 7 AM to 7 PM, Sundays and holidays excepted.” The explicit mention of the exception means that NO other exceptions are to be inferred. Thus we should take the Latin verb probare in the maxim to have the sense of “to increase the force of.”
— Hugh Miller, Chicago
Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you’re right. While the interpretation I gave, namely that the exception tests the rule, has a long history (it dates back at least to 1893), I’ll concede that your take on it is the original sense of the proverb.
That said, your example could use a little work. We need something that better conveys the import of this ancient maxim. I have just the thing — an illustration from the Roman orator Cicero, sometimes cited as the source of the legal doctrine in question.
Cicero was defending one Bilbo. (No relation to Frodo.) Bilbo was a
non-Roman who was accused of having been illegally granted Roman
citizenship. The prosecutor argued that treaties with some non-Roman
peoples explicitly prohibited them from becoming Roman citizens. The treaty with Bilbo’s homeboys had no such clause, but the prosecutor suggested one should be inferred.
Nonsense, said Cicero. “Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit exceptum …” Oops, I keep forgetting how rusty folks are on subjunctives. Cicero said, if you prohibit something in certain cases, you imply that the rest of the time it’s permitted. To put it another way, the explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails otherwise.
You can see where an argument like this would come in handy in traffic
court. What’s more, it’s basically what Kyle Gann was arguing in his letter, although his “psychological” angle obscured matters a bit. Accordingly I withdraw my more abrupt comments.
Still, whatever the original significance of the proverb, we should
recognize that its many latter-day interpretations have taken on a life of their own. Since there is not much chance of stamping these out en masse,
we may as well resign ourselves to trying to boost the sensible interpretations and suppress the rest. Here it seems to me that the interpretation I initially favored, that the exception tests the rule,
comes off pretty well.
I am delighted to find ammunition for this view in H.W. Fowler’s respected Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1965), which distinguishes five
possible senses of “the exception proves the rule.” Sense #1 is the legal (i.e., your) interpretation; senses #3, #4, and #5 are popular
constructions of the saying, which Fowler regards as more or less slipshod. But he thinks more highly of sense #2, which we may state this way: an apparent exception to a rule may serve on closer examination to strengthen it. By way of example he writes:
“We have concluded by induction that Jones the critic, who never writes a kindly notice, lacks the faculty of appreciation. One day a warm eulogy of
an anonymous novel appears over his signature; we see that this exception destroys our induction. Later it comes out that the anonymous novelist is Jones himself; our conviction that he lacks the faculty of appreciation is all the stronger for the apparent exception when once we have found out
that, being self-appreciation, it is outside the scope of the rule — which, however, we now modify to exclude it, saying that he lacks the faculty of appreciating others. Or again, it turns out that the writer of the notice
is another Jones; then our opinion of Jones the first is only the stronger for having been momentarily shaken. These kinds of exception are of great value in scientific inquiry, but they prove the rule not when they are seen to be exceptions, but when they have been shown to be either outside of or reconcilable with the principle they seem to contradict.”
This is not far removed from “the exception tests the rule.” Under the somewhat embarrassing circumstances, that’s about the best I can expect.
Cecil Adams
On 8/23/2024 11:38 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/23/2024 6:30 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-08-23 16:18:31 +0000, moviePig said:
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"... >>>>>>>
I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
"If you are making a general statement and you say that
something is the exception that proves the rule, you
mean that although it seems to contradict your
statement, in most other cases your statement will be
true."
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule>
Afaik, the saying's rationale is that, if we agree that some instance is >>> an exception, it's an acknowledgement of the converse rule-of-thumb.
But, semantically, the saying itself is still spaghetti.
https://www.straightdope.com/21341901/what-s-the-meaning-of-the-expression-that-s-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule
What’s the meaning of the expression, “That’s the exception that proves the
rule?”
By Cecil Adams Oct 24, 1991, 11:00pm MST
SHARE
COPY LINK
Dear Cecil: I’ve heard the following expression from people all over the >> country and on television. It makes absolutely no sense: “That’s the
exception that proves the rule.” Is this a bastardization of some other
phrase? If not, what does it mean? Lorraine N., East Weymouth,
Massachusetts
910802.gif
Illustration by Slug Signorino
Cecil replies:
Don’t you get it? The whole point of this saying is that it doesn’t make >> sense. It’s what you say to confound your enemies when your argument has >> been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. From the point
of view of advancing the debate it’s about one jump ahead of “yo mama,” but
it beats standing there with your mouth open.
To be sure, a few scholarly types have tried to make excuses for “The
exception proves the rule,” as the quotation books usually phrase it. They >> say it comes from the medieval Latin aphorism Exceptio probat regulam.
Probat means “prove” in the sense of “test,” as in “proving ground” or “the
proof is in the pudding.” So “the exception proves the rule” means a close
look at exceptions helps us determine a rule’s validity.
If Latinists understand it that way, however, they’re pretty much alone. >> I’ve looked up citations of this saying dating back to 1664, and in every >> case it was used in the brain-dead manner we’re accustomed to today — that
is, to suggest that non-conforming cases, by the mere fact of their
existence, somehow confirm or support a generalization. Obviously they do
nothing of the kind. We like to think proverbs become proverbial because
they’re true; this one is an exception. It certainly doesn’t prove the >> rule.
Exceptional stupidity
Dear Cecil:
I was surprised to see the question in your column about the exception
proving the rule because I had always assumed the saying came from the
“rule” that “there’s an exception to every rule.” Thus the mere existence
of an exception to a rule proves the validity of the rule. No?
— V.M., Berkeley, California
No. If all it takes for a rule to be valid is that it have an exception,
every rule would be valid — except, of course, rules without exceptions. >> Obviously not an argument you want to take very far.
Exceptional stupidity, part two
Dear Cecil:
Your reply to the question, “What does `that’s the exception that proves >> the rule’ mean?” was not quite right. The quote refers to a logician’s >> axiom: that which can never be false can likewise never be true. If a
statement cannot be admitted ever to be false, then it is a concealed
tautology, i.e., a dogma. An instance of a proposition’s not-being-the-case
serves to affirm its existential validity, assuming it does not commit a
violation of the rules of logic. Both logical validity AND existential
verification are required for one to justly assert that such-and-such is
true …
— Max L., Santa Barbara, California
You’re talking about “falsifiability,” Max. If no conceivable evidence >> could prove a given statement false, then the statement is meaningless. For >> example, if a psychic comes out with predictions so vague they can’t
possibly be proven wrong, then the predictions are baloney. Note, however, >> that contrary evidence merely has to be conceivable. If contrary evidence
actually exists, the statement is more than falsifiable, it’s false. To put
it as clearly as I can, THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXCEPTION DOES NOT VALIDATE THE >> FREAKING RULE! Quite the opposite. But anybody who can sling around phrases >> like “existential validity” deserves credit for trying.
Part three and counting
Dear Cecil:
OK, OK, I acknowledge your general brilliance, but I can’t stand it another
minute. The appropriate provenance of the saying “It’s the exception that
proves the rule” is psychology, not logic. You can have a rule without an >> exception, but you can’t have an exception without a rule. Therefore, if >> something appears to be an exception, that indicates that a rule must
exist. If you reflexively think of something as an exception, then you can >> infer that you’ve already, perhaps unconsciously, postulated a rule.
Perceptually, the exception throws the rule into relief. It’s analogous to,
“It’s turning on the light that proves you were in the dark.” Read it as
“It’s the [recognition of an] exception that proves the [existence of a] >> rule.” Geez, it’s just a saying, and not a bad one at that.
— Kyle Gann, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
What is this, proverb as Rorschach test? Everybody I’ve heard from has a >> different take on this. There is nothing in the literature or common
experience to support your farfetched interpretation.
The last word on exceptions
Dear Cecil:
I hate to have to correct Cecil Adams, but the business about “the
exception proves the rule” in the latest Straight Dope seems way wide of >> the mark. The proverb’s meaning must be expounded not in the context of
natural or psychological law but of civil law. Alan Bliss, in A Dictionary >> of Words and Phrases in Current English, has the following to say about the >> origin of this phrase: “Exception probat regulam [Lat.], the exception
proves the rule. A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio
probat [or (con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis — `the fact that >> certain exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is >> valid in all other cases.’”
The application is this. Suppose a law is stated in such a way as to
include an exception, e.g., “Parking is prohibited on this street from 7 AM
to 7 PM, Sundays and holidays excepted.” The explicit mention of the
exception means that NO other exceptions are to be inferred. Thus we should >> take the Latin verb probare in the maxim to have the sense of “to increase >> the force of.”
— Hugh Miller, Chicago
Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you’re right. While the interpretation >> I gave, namely that the exception tests the rule, has a long history (it
dates back at least to 1893), I’ll concede that your take on it is the
original sense of the proverb.
That said, your example could use a little work. We need something that
better conveys the import of this ancient maxim. I have just the thing — an
illustration from the Roman orator Cicero, sometimes cited as the source of >> the legal doctrine in question.
Cicero was defending one Bilbo. (No relation to Frodo.) Bilbo was a
non-Roman who was accused of having been illegally granted Roman
citizenship. The prosecutor argued that treaties with some non-Roman
peoples explicitly prohibited them from becoming Roman citizens. The treaty >> with Bilbo’s homeboys had no such clause, but the prosecutor suggested one >> should be inferred.
Nonsense, said Cicero. “Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit
exceptum …” Oops, I keep forgetting how rusty folks are on subjunctives. >> Cicero said, if you prohibit something in certain cases, you imply that the >> rest of the time it’s permitted. To put it another way, the explicit
statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails
otherwise.
You can see where an argument like this would come in handy in traffic
court. What’s more, it’s basically what Kyle Gann was arguing in his
letter, although his “psychological” angle obscured matters a bit.
Accordingly I withdraw my more abrupt comments.
Still, whatever the original significance of the proverb, we should
recognize that its many latter-day interpretations have taken on a life of >> their own. Since there is not much chance of stamping these out en masse,
we may as well resign ourselves to trying to boost the sensible
interpretations and suppress the rest. Here it seems to me that the
interpretation I initially favored, that the exception tests the rule,
comes off pretty well.
I am delighted to find ammunition for this view in H.W. Fowler’s respected >> Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1965), which distinguishes five
possible senses of “the exception proves the rule.” Sense #1 is the legal
(i.e., your) interpretation; senses #3, #4, and #5 are popular
constructions of the saying, which Fowler regards as more or less slipshod. >> But he thinks more highly of sense #2, which we may state this way: an
apparent exception to a rule may serve on closer examination to strengthen >> it. By way of example he writes:
“We have concluded by induction that Jones the critic, who never writes a >> kindly notice, lacks the faculty of appreciation. One day a warm eulogy of >> an anonymous novel appears over his signature; we see that this exception
destroys our induction. Later it comes out that the anonymous novelist is
Jones himself; our conviction that he lacks the faculty of appreciation is >> all the stronger for the apparent exception when once we have found out
that, being self-appreciation, it is outside the scope of the rule — which,
however, we now modify to exclude it, saying that he lacks the faculty of
appreciating others. Or again, it turns out that the writer of the notice
is another Jones; then our opinion of Jones the first is only the stronger >> for having been momentarily shaken. These kinds of exception are of great
value in scientific inquiry, but they prove the rule not when they are seen >> to be exceptions, but when they have been shown to be either outside of or >> reconcilable with the principle they seem to contradict.”
This is not far removed from “the exception tests the rule.” Under the >> somewhat embarrassing circumstances, that’s about the best I can expect. >>
Cecil Adams
Worth reading in its punctilious entirety...
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/23/2024 6:30 PM, Your Name wrote:
On 2024-08-23 16:18:31 +0000, moviePig said:
On 8/23/2024 4:56 AM, trotsky wrote:
On 8/23/24 1:12 AM, super70s wrote:
On 2024-08-22 20:44:06 +0000, moviePig said:
Always hated that expression, makes zero sense.
Say, I bet you're also a big fan of "The exception proves the rule"... >>>>>>
I think it means "the rule" makes zero sense.
Both, afaics.
"If you are making a general statement and you say that
something is the exception that proves the rule, you
mean that although it seems to contradict your
statement, in most other cases your statement will be
true."
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-exception-that-proves-the-rule>
Afaik, the saying's rationale is that, if we agree that some instance is
an exception, it's an acknowledgement of the converse rule-of-thumb.
But, semantically, the saying itself is still spaghetti.
https://www.straightdope.com/21341901/what-s-the-meaning-of-the-expression-that-s-the-exception-that-proves-the-rule
Another conveniently vague reference, but I'm pretty sure she's throwing >shade on rich people here. Although couching it terms of "taking" rather
than "earning" their wealth seems rather disingenuous. As if they're
just looters at a BLM riot or something.
Quick to the Google machine! ... type, type, type... "Michelle Obama net >worth"... bleep, bloop, chirp...
Oh, look at that. Seventy million quatloos.
"They were suspicious of people who took more than they needed."
Seventy m-m-million dollars.
She goes on to talk about the immorality of people who celebrate while
others are suffering.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:09:05 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Another conveniently vague reference, but I'm pretty sure she's throwing
shade on rich people here. Although couching it terms of "taking" rather
than "earning" their wealth seems rather disingenuous. As if they're
just looters at a BLM riot or something.
Quick to the Google machine! ... type, type, type... "Michelle Obama net
worth"... bleep, bloop, chirp...
Oh, look at that. Seventy million quatloos.
"They were suspicious of people who took more than they needed."
Seventy m-m-million dollars.
She goes on to talk about the immorality of people who celebrate while
others are suffering.
I'd be quite happy to 'take' 70 million.
Wonder if she includes lottery winners in her definition of 'take'
On Aug 28, 2024 at 12:17:07 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:09:05 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Another conveniently vague reference, but I'm pretty sure she's throwing >>> shade on rich people here. Although couching it terms of "taking" rather >>> than "earning" their wealth seems rather disingenuous. As if they're
just looters at a BLM riot or something.
Quick to the Google machine! ... type, type, type... "Michelle Obama net >>> worth"... bleep, bloop, chirp...
Oh, look at that. Seventy million quatloos.
"They were suspicious of people who took more than they needed."
Seventy m-m-million dollars.
She goes on to talk about the immorality of people who celebrate while
others are suffering.
I'd be quite happy to 'take' 70 million.
Wonder if she includes lottery winners in her definition of 'take'
She apparently includes every rich person except herself and her husband.
And she might give grudgingly you a pass if you donate a lot of your money to Democrats.
The moment she mentioned "generational wealth", everyone knew what she
was talking about.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:14:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
That's one of those dog whistle code words where everyone knows what's >>>being referenced.
The moment she mentioned "generational wealth", everyone knew what she >>>was talking about.
And she might give grudgingly you a pass if you donate a lot of your money to >Democrats.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:13:37 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 02:14:28 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
That's one of those dog whistle code words where everyone knows what's >>>> being referenced.
The moment she mentioned "generational wealth", everyone knew what she >>>> was talking about.
Damned right.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 26:04:38 |
| Calls: | 8,036 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,034 |
| Messages: | 5,829,395 |