| |||||||||||||
Exceptions and rulesExceptions and rulesPosted Oct 29, 2012 15:37 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)In reply to: Exceptions and rules by rfunk Parent article: Thoughts on the ext4 panic
"almost every modern use of it is wrong"
Or, to look at it another way, perhaps it's the usage mavens who are wrong. We don't all have to be Humpty Dumpty, but if the vast majority of people choose to use a word, a phrase or even an entire language in a way that overturns precedent you eventually have to bend to their will or be broken by it. This isn't an example like misnegation where you can argue that perhaps someone didn't mean what they wrote, the author intended exactly these words, they just didn't intend it to mean quite what it once did.
Even eggcorns, which begin with a mistaken re-analysis of a spoken word or phrase, sometimes enter the mainstream. Once upon a time "upmost" was clearly sometimes a mistake for "utmost" today it's unclear, in another century there may be usage mavens insisting "upmost" should be preferred as more logical and "down the pipe" might likewise displace "down the pike".
(Log in to post comments)
Exceptions and rules (digression) Posted Oct 29, 2012 15:55 UTC (Mon) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]
The modern use of this is confusing. After all, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" means "The right way to test a pudding is by eating it".
Also, "80% proof whisky" means "tested, contains 40% ethanol".
Exceptions and rules (digression) Posted Oct 29, 2012 19:54 UTC (Mon) by davidstrauss (subscriber, #85867) [Link]
It's "80 proof," not "80% proof." "Proof" is like "percent," except with a denominator of 200 -- and only really used for liquor.
Exceptions and rules (digression) Posted Oct 29, 2012 23:10 UTC (Mon) by barryascott (subscriber, #80640) [Link]
I like the historic origin of testing alcohol content by seeing if gunpower will ignite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_proof
Exceptions and rules Posted Oct 29, 2012 15:56 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
But those exact words don't mean anything sensible in most cases. An exception cannot logically show that a rule is valid in the usual modern sense of "prove", and this is what most people mean. The modern idea seems to be that because this phrase exists, it must be valid to use an exception to prove that a rule is valid, which is of course logical nonsense. Logical nonsense is much different from simply giving new definitions to words or coining new words.
Exceptions and rules Posted Oct 29, 2012 16:34 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Yes, I think we're all familiar with the "But it's not logical" argument from the Lynne Trusses of this world. The problem with that argument generally, and here specifically is that language isn't about sharing propositions of formal logic. Interpreting other people's utterances as logical propositions makes for a briefly amusing diversion in a light drama but it's a terrible way to carry on a real conversation.
"It's like the Somme out there"
The legal origin of this idea of an "exception that proves the rule" is fascinating, but the phrase has taken on a life of its own. You will notice that people are also content to say "third time is a charm" (there is no logical reason to believe that third attempts are special in any way) and "If a job's worth doing it's worth doing well" (likewise, a shoddy job may be the only economic or practical option) and many other phrases which can't be defended logically. They're not doing it wrong, these phrases aren't intended to be truthful statements about the world, any more than anybody thought exceptions /actually/ prove a rule.
Exceptions and rules Posted Oct 29, 2012 16:42 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
The other examples you cite at least have internal logic. People may or may not believe them (and many people do in fact believe them as truths about the world), but they make internal sense without needing to believe them as true.
Exceptions and rules Posted Oct 29, 2012 16:41 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] "Exception that proves the rule" is part of the phrase. The full legal principle is exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted") as you, I hope, know. Classic example will be Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.00 p.m.; "The exception proves the rule" means that this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier. The value of this in interpreting statutes is plain. Modern example will be Now we know that exceptional case of ext4 with journal_checksum is not stable. Application of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis principle will mean that: ext4 is stable unless non-standard option journal_checksum is used - and this is indeed the case. IOW: this article is rare case where phrase "exception that proves the rule" is used correctly. P.S. When you start badmouthing people and explain that the net is full of explanation about the original meaning of this phrase, and why almost every modern use of it is wrong it's good idea to refresh your own knowledge and see if you understand what the phrase means and when it's appropriately used.
Exceptions and rules Posted Nov 8, 2012 12:01 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
This comment actually gets to the root of the problem. The modern understanding of the word "prove" has changed.
Hence, the saying no longer means what it did, because the meaning of the words have changed underneath it.
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||