next let's get onto my pet peeve: "quantum leap" when the speaker is referring to a very large jump.

Cecil Adams provides a pretty good explanation of it.

Actually, I don't know that either of these is correct. For a long time I thought the phrase was simply nonsense, until I realized that it's a statement of statistical findings: the exception that "proves" the rule is actually the exception that demonstrates a rule exists. That is, the exception is so rare that the very fact that it is an exception shows, or draws attention to the fact, that there is a statistical tendency in the other direction.

In the empirical case cited, there is a statistical tendency for the taller presidential candidate to win. The fact that the taller candidate lost in 2004--that someone violated the statistical tendency--highlights or puts in bold relief the statistical tendency (tall men "always" win).

In this case, Kevin, your statement that someone might use it to win an argument does tend to highlight another statistical tendency: this phrase tends to be used in ways that border on nonsense. You need a really strong statistical tendency, and only ONE exception, for the phrase to make any real sense.

Does that help?

Follow-up: I'd stick to my own interpretation, but it's pretty close to the "civil law" interpretation that someone gives (and that Kevin mentioned) in response to Cecil Adams. But it's not the same. I've heard thise phrase used in ways that only make sense in the way I interpreted it. On the other hand, I totally agree with Kevin and with Cecil--that it is usually used in borderline nonsensical ways in actual arguments.

KEVIN: Nonsensical or not, that makes it a pretty handy handy phrase to have around, doesn't it?

Anyway, I've found that most bloggers have a good sense of humor, but you're the exception that proves the rule..:)

Dear little Sissy Hawk: You mean all those folks marching in an Irish-American parade were really born in Ireland? What a half-wit you are.

What ever happened to 'black'?

Black is an acceptable, some would even say the preferred term. I see it everywhere in the "politically correct" media.

For use in rebutting arguments without actually rebutting them, "The exception proves the rule" is handy in the same way "I know you are but what am I" is for deflecting insults. Mindless but fun.

Nonsensical or not, that makes it a pretty handy handy phrase to have around, doesn't it?

Not as handy or as nonsensical as the phrase "begging the question".

Yes - "begging the question" and the way it has been bastardized is one of my pet peeves.

That, and growing use of "disinterested", when what is meant is "uninterested"...

Kevin, you would enjoy reading "Ballyhoo Buckaroo and Spuds," by the author of the World Wide Words web site you reference. It discusses the origin, and changes through time, of this expression and many others.

AMERICAN HAWK: Yeah, I've noticed it seems to be on the upswing lately-- a change that I, for one, welcome.

Another one I hate is "African American". It's literal meaning would be "Somebody from Africa who is an American".

I've always thought it worked like this. You state a rule. Your interlocutor points to a single noteworthy exception. The invocation of "the exception proves the rule" is meant to draw attention to the fact that your interlocutor has produced a single noteworthy exception, which, if it really is an exception, shows that there is a general rule, if not an absolute, exceptionless law.

For example, suppose Michael Jordan had one really terrible game in his career. When you make the case that he's the best player ever, someone points to this game as evidence that he isn't. But in fact, that it is such a noteworthy exception is evidence that maybe he really is. We don't take note when a player we don't count on to perform every time has one bad game.

But here's a question: how did the phrase get corrupted in the first place?

Liberals.

This has been a Conservative edition of Short Answers To Silly Questions.

next let's get onto my pet peeve: "quantum leap" when the speaker is referring to a very large jump.

That actually makes sense to me. Although nuclear distances are very small, the idea is that atomic particles move from one point to another in a manner that defies conventional thinking.

I've always thought it was a rather elegant way of saying an idea or an observation was ingeniously incisive, and that it moved our understanding from point A to point B in a way that was utterly unanticipated, but plausibly correct.

The first statement is better translated as "the exception to the rule," the second one "the exception that proves the rule." In your example, the statement, "Entry free every day but today," would be equivalent to "Entry free today only." You can infer that it means "Entry free on other days." But you could also leave the sign hanging on the door all the time, or you could take it down and put it up arbitrarily. All it really means is "Entry free today."

"The exception to the rule" is a statement that most closely applies to empiric method. For any hypothesis (i.e., rule) based on inductive (i.e, empirical) reasoning, there are usually numerous examples to support the truth value of the hypothesis. A counter-example, one that seems to disprove the hypothesis, requires 1) that the counter-example be closely examined to see if it is actually valid and 2) that, if it is valid, the counter-example be weighed against the evidence of the supporting examples. In the event the counter-example carries the majority weight of the argument in its favor, the hypothesis can either be rejected outright or expanded to include the counter-example.

To your point, no counter-example can logically "prove" the rule. That's totally bogus.

Also a neocon is neither neo nor conservative.

Ah, Kevin.

Another one I hate is Gay American. As if Gay is a different ethinc group. It's an American who happens to think their gay, or an American that needs to cling to gayness as an identifier. There are no Gay Americans. It's a misonmer.

And how about the Feminazis? Why don't they just relax and except who they are, rather than trying to affront everyone with their psuedointellectallism? It just gets old, and people have stopped buying it.

I've always thought it worked like this. You state a rule. Your interlocutor points to a single noteworthy exception. The invocation of "the exception proves the rule" is meant to draw attention to the fact that your interlocutor has produced a single noteworthy exception, which, if it really is an exception, shows that there is a general rule, if not an absolute, exceptionless law.

I always looked at it the same way. It's the recognition that the rule, while imperfect, is consistent enough to have an exception that we recognize as an exception. If it isn't a rule then violations of the rule are commonplace, not exceptional.

But here's a question: how did the phrase get corrupted in the first place?

LCD.

It's the recognition that the rule, while imperfect, is consistent enough to have an exception that we recognize as an exception.

But, contrary to the expression, "the exception" does not prove the rule. What proves the rule are the aggregation of positive instances. IOW, it's a dumbing-down-ism.

All it really means is "Entry free today."

But if on any other days entry is not free, this violates one of Grice's maxims (quantity): Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. By analogy, I woudn't write, "Kevin made a post in English today that contained no egregious grammatical errors."

I believe that Thomas and ASDF are on the right track. In the sciences I have been involved in as a student in college, and they were numerous, the phrase was rarely used except in genetics and evolutionary biology. In those disciplines, the context was that an "exception" was truly distinguishable from "the rule" and, therefore, left the rule intact, thus "proving the rule".

Kevin asks,

"How did the phrase get corrupted in the first place?"

It DIDN'T get corrupted. It's just that the meaning of the word "prove" has changed over the centuries.

Here's my interpretation of this:

A rule may have the qualified form

IF P THEN Q

An exception is an event in which Q is false. An exceptional event confirms the rule if P is also false for that event.

The exceptional event proves the rule in the sense that it shows that qualifier P is actually non-redundant. In other words, the unqualified rule

Q

is false.

Example: "The museum is closed today" (and "today is monday") is the exception which "proves" the rule

IF it's not Monday THEN the Museum is open.

A friend of mine recently asked (knowing that I studied way too much Latin in high school) whether it was "the die is cast" or "the dye is cast", with the reasoning that if it is dye thrown into the Rubicon, it cannot be unthrown, because it cannot be unmixed. He says that trawling the net turns about a 60-40 split on the two answers.

Has everyone noticed that whatever is posted by Kevin gets bastardized by american shit for brains,al,and egbert.It's as if the only opinion or purpose they have is to obfuscate the conversation. Do you guys ever have anything to add or are you just contrary?I before e except after c.

This saying has been around for as long as I can remember: "There's an exception to every rule."

"Exception that proves the rule," is merely a twist on that earlier saying, in effect:

"Well if every rule has an exception, then this must be the exception that proves that the rule exists/is true."

Of course, it's illogical. But the people who say "proves the rule" are just using it as a childish response/defense againt those rule-naysayers. It's more or less, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Caesar said "alea iacta est". Alea is a die, plural dice, not a dye. Dye would be "fucus" or "color".

And how about the Feminazis?

yeah, who coined that stupid term anyway?

oh right, conservatards like egbert and Chickenhawk, and their moronic hero--the Viagra and Oxycontin poppin' Rush Limpdick.

"A friend of mine recently asked (knowing that I studied way too much Latin in high school) whether it was 'the die is cast' or 'the dye is cast'"

Caesar was quoting the Greek poet Menander, and the reference was to dice (plural of die).

I would suggest that the phrase's use of the term "proves" suggests an empirical, determinative connotation. However, when the phrase is co-opted by politicians, pundits and social commenters, it is bastardized from the empirical and objective to the ambiguous and subjective and thus becomes "corrupted".

This post was elegantly written, logically coherent and informative - for Political Animal it truely was the exception that proves the rule.

My pet peeve has to be "short lived" pronounced as "short livved." The phrase means "having a short life," hence "short lye-v'd."

Sheesh.

Current example of exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis in action?

The Constitution plainly says - in Article I, sec. 9 - that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Okay -- NOW I wanna know: why did Gaius of the Julii refer to just one of a pair when he crossed the Rubicon?

I mean -- dice have always been cast in pairs, no? Or was there some specific game he was referring to -- or a particular opponent?

To modern ears, crossing a river with his army to make himself (and them) an outlaw as a desperate grab for power, it would make sense to say: "Well, hell, now we've rolled the dice."

But that he said it as a singular, strongly implies that somebody else has the other one, and it's not cast yet.

So -- what gives? Why did he refer to only one of a pair?

N.B. -- I am told that some folks say that Caesar actually shouted "Iaci alea!", which frankly makes more sense.

Bellowing "Shoot the dice!" seems more like something a shockingly successful and (thus) very popular general would do, with his horse in the middle of a stream as his legions took a BIG step.

Still, the singular is unexplained.

It has always struck me as just above idiocy. Anyone deep enough to recognize these distinctions would make them in the first place rather than use a self-contradictory phrase like this one.

And "begs the question" is another increasingly misused phrase; the only difference is that it could be interpreted in a nearly logical fashion, provided one completely avoids considering why the term "begs" is being used instead of "provokes" or "implies." I have taken to using "inspires" or some synonym in the rare instances when I want to say something like "this observation inspires us to consider the additional question, . . ."

And yes -- consigned to the same bin of ignorance and illogic are the other phrases:

quantum jump or quantum leap

everything is relative (misinterpreting Einstein, who points out that one thing is not relative at all, but invariant)

It's only a theory (I am collecting exceptions to the theory of gravity myself)

"Anyway, I've found that most bloggers have a good sense of humor, but you're the exception that proves the rule..:)"
-- jararbee

Point taken . . . ;)

And, oh, I'd give worlds were it just so that most bloggers have a good sense of humor. But watch out! As you've noticed, those who try to pull a little leg on these blogs can expect all too frequently to get banged over the head with it.

Some folks do take themselves soooo seriously.

Perhaps it's like the sign you see from time to time on the outskirts of a small town:

POPULATION: 234 and 1 sorehead.

Or something like that.

I suppose that's part of the charm of blogs. A lot of well-informed folks not lacking in a sense of humor who obligingly pass on what information they have for the greater good as they see it -- and then, a gaggle of soreheads who prefer to spit.

Charming.

Well, off to the Oscars . . .

Re quantum leap, my OED says this:

"quantum increase, a sudden large increase; cf. quantum jump; quantum jump, an abrupt transition between one stationary state of a quantized system and another, with the absorption or emission of a quantum; also transf., a sudden large increase or advance; quantum leap, a sudden large advance; cf. quantum jump;"

What does your OED say?

I prefer clarity to showing off.

Sullivan said weekly 'zines are dead, the New Yorker and Economist being "exceptions that prove the rule."

I dunno how anybody could misunderstand that. If there were six other thriving weekly 'zines, then the success of the two he named would no longer be exceptional. That there are only two exceptions tends to show that he's right, the weekly really is dead.

Most of the objections or elaborations on the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" seem to misunderstand WHY anybody would say it in the first place.

In Sullivan's case, he said a reasonably intelligent thing in a reasonably intelligent way, and elaborated clearly when challenged. (He sez the New Yorker and Economist are both exceptional in other ways, too, the New Yorker is really a monthly that comes out once a week, while somehow people manage to get their employers to pay for the Economist, but not Time or Newsweek or USNews.)

But the way he said it first made obvious sense, and I don't see how objecting to his use of "the exception that proves..." identified any ambiguity or error.

But Kevin's example, a sign that says "free admission today", implies that on all other days, it costs to get in. Thus, the sign is an exception that proves a rule (to which it is an exception).

I suppose it's worth pointing how you only have to find ONE exception to disprove a properly formed rule, as in science and theories (cue the Darwin debate): if you find one white crow, you've proven that "all crows are black" is false. But you haven't proved you can find a lot of crows that aren't black.

Some knucklehead posted how useless another phrase "begging the question" is, and nobody noticed the irony that Kevin had already given an example. That is, what Kevin said as an example actually, er, exemplifies what he was objecting to.

In logic, "begging the question" means an argument has taken something for granted which needs to be challenged: "free admission today" only IMPLIES that on other days, there's a charge. The question begged is, just because today is free, does that mean on other days it costs to get in?

If you apply logic to Sullivan's "weekly 'zines are dead, except for.." you find that, with a bit of hyperbole, he's onto something. (Especially when he points out that NEWS magazines and OPINION magazines, even daily Op-Eds, are in danger.)

But apply it to Kevin's example, you realize just why phrases become popular. His sign about free admission begs the question.

(shaking head) We oughta go back to the 'ic' rule for education. All subjects ought to end in 'ic' -- arithmetic, logic, music, rhetoric...

captcrisis says the phrase "DIDN'T get corrupted. It's just that the meaning of the word 'prove' has changed over the centuries."

He's right. In Middle English and Early Modern English, the sole meaning of prove was "to test," not "to determine to be correct." Even modern dictionaries provide that definition as an alternative: Merriam-Webster online has "to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of."

So the exception, according to the old proverb, tests the rule, calling into question its validity and perhaps finding it false--precisely the opposite of the modern nonsensical understanding.

"It's only a theory."

What bugs the shit out of me is describing a disagreement as being "just semantics". Semantics is about the meaning of language (okay, truth values of statements, for some) and it seems completely unreasonable to dismiss meaning as being unimportant.

"We oughta go back to the 'ic' rule for education. All subjects ought to end in 'ic' -- arithmetic, logic, music, rhetoric..."

Grammaric, philosophic, algebraic, engineeric . . .

I did some research on the origin of this phrase a few years back and it was definitely inconclusive. It seems early references used it in the two ways Kevin refers to right from the get go.

Personally, I still think it comes from the Latin "probare" which means "to probe or test." That what gives us this phrase as well as "printer's proof" and "proving ground" etc.

The other meaning strikes me as a "just so" story (see Kipling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story) made up after the fact to justify an incorrect usage -- like how the camel got its hump.

Robert Silvey - I wonder if what you state isn't to some degree the result of a comingling over the years of the terms "prove" and "proof".

TheAmericanist - I believe what you described dovetails with something I said earlier up the thread. Exceptions are distinguished from the rule (even though they may superficially appear to be controlled by the rule) and, thus distinguished, leave the rule intact, thus continuing to prove it. I fully admit that 1) my point of view here comes only from a scientific outlook because for some reason that is where my mind sticks on this conversation and 2) we are plowing into fairly esoteric levels af analysis; but hey, its kind of interesting.

for me the operative word is "the" as in: if you can only think of "the [one] exception" than the rule is generally true. Here's a dumb example: The Senate is run by the Democrats and Republicans. Yeah, but what about Bernie Sanders?

"Grammar school never taught me anything about grammar."
--Isaac Goldberg

I really enjoyed Sullyman's latest book "The Conservative Bosom: A Meditation for All Mankind" and in my view it was not several hundred pages of warmed-over middlebrow New Republic liberal centrist bullcrap masquerading as conservatism but a very important book for our time.

"What does your OED say?"

the original meaning of the term has to do with the change in energy level of an electron, typically the smallest physically possible energy change, which is very small indeed. it is only in the vernacular that "quantum leap" means a large change. the two cases, correct and incorrect, do have in common that the change happens all at once rather than gradually.

it so happens I prefer the original meaning of the term to its later bastardization, hence the "pet peeve" status.

then there is "towing the line...".

As for the point Sully was trying to make, logic problems aside: Time, Newsweek, etc (if there's an etc) don't count or aren't any good?

BTW, if you know what all the exceptions are, then you know to what extent the rule is correct.

I love how the wingnuts are required to politicize EVERY FUCKING POST.

Maybe it's because I suffered through first year Latin, but I've always understood the phrase to mean the exception "tests" the rule. The word "probo" is latin for "I test", which is where the word "proof" derives its original meaning. "Probe" and "probate" are other derivatives. Also found in "the proof (i.e. test) of the pudding is in the eating". The phrase is pretty much a linguistic fossil.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was not taken, though. In "The Sign of the Four", Holmes says to Watson, "I never make exceptions. An exception DISproves the rule".

>>it so happens I prefer the original meaning of the term to its later bastardization, hence the "pet peeve" status.

You may call this a "bastardization," but the OED does no such thing. It's just pedantry, plain and simple. By the way, according to the OED, "pedantry" means "conceit or unseasonable display of learning or technical knowledge." Or do you "prefer" a different meaning?

Grammar war! Hell, yeah!

SCHNOOKY: My pet peeve has to be "short lived" pronounced as "short livved." The phrase means "having a short life," hence "short lye-v'd."

American Hawk writes:

"Another one I hate is "African American".. It's literal meaning would be "Somebody from Africa who is an American". As used, however, a black guy with roots in Haiti born in Canada is "African American"

First, the vast majority of blacks in the US are descended from slaves. The fact that you choose isolated examples shows the exception proves the rule. And a black guy from Haiti originally did come from Africa - if he emigrated to the US, he would be African-American. Just like how an Asian from Canada wouldn't be an Asian-American - an Asian-American is an American citizen of Asian descent, just like African-American refers to an American citizen of African descent.

That actually has nothing to do with Kevin's subject, but since you brought it up, what's really wrong is how "America" refers to the United States. America consists of two Continents. So according to your example, both a African-Canada and a Haitan are indeed an African-American, because Canada and Haita are part of the American continents. You never think things through, do you Hawk?

My understanding of the term is somewhat different than those I've seen here. It is not just the term "proves" that has changed but, more importantly here, the word "rule" has changed as well. The original term referred to determining the person in charge. Put another way it would mean "The non-use of a certain regulation shows who has the power to make such changes." It is simply a case of people misusing the statement.

LOL -- I will NOT be sucked into a discussion of what African-American means. (cuz, um, I know.)

The actual origin of most words and phrases is often useful, especially in the secondary and tertiary meanings. In the olden days, a boxer had to 'toe the line', or 'come up to scratch' to continue the fight. So it's useful to use the phrase to mean 'watch your step', the way a soldier has to do it.

The expression RESONATES.

When somebody uses "quantum leap" to mean an exponential advance, the way nuclear weapons boosted the power of a single explosion, they are being precisely accurate. So why bitch about it?

There are LOTS of such examples in science, particularly biology and history. Gould wrote a whole essay about it, explaining why there aren't many .400 hitters anymore... and also, oddly, why the National Geographic Magazine of I think it was February 1940 is so hard to find.

The thing is, if you're making a distinction that doesn't actually make a difference when you object to the way somebody says something, you're being a pain in the ass rather than useful.

That is, if somebody says 'the effective technology of manipulating public opinion has taken a quantum leap since Nixon resigned', and you object because you don't consider the methods used for measuring and moving voters to be much like the movement and location of electrons, that's okay -- but it's an opinion about ELECTRONS, not about politics or language.

If your objection is cuz you think voters might behave like electrons, being instantaneously moved from one place to another without any transition, but you DON'T think that's happened since 1974, or that if it has, that's not because of technology, that's also okay -- but it's not an opinion about physics or language.

But if you know what "quantum leap" actually mean in physics, and you understand how it is used in this political way (for example), and you STILL object, as language, and pretend that your objection has to do with physics -- well, you're simply full of shit.

I sorta like the 'exception proves the rule' notion. Many people simply don't understand what a 'theory' is, as in 'the theory of evolution', or 'the theory of relativity'. Science is all about proving theories wrong -- and all THAT takes, is a single contradictory fact. If you theorize that ALL crows are black, and somebody finds a single white crow, the theory is wrong.

So a big part of science is finding ways to pose a hypothesis so it CAN be proven wrong, cuz when it IS, then you know something that you didn't before.

Would we could do more of that, not less.

I've always had a different interpretation. Way different.

"The exception that proves the rule" is talking about the rule "every rule has an exception". You are merely re-affirming that every rule has an exception.

'Essay' as 'test', etymologically linked to 'assay'.

Now you've got me started. That word "exponential" used to imply a large increase is the most idiotic misuse among supposedly learned pundits. Even Charlie Epps on Numb3rs pointed out the error of this usage. It is a sign of numerical illiteracy of the first order.

It is true that if you compare two different values, they can be fit to an exponential function (or an infinite number of such), but the concept of exponential refers to the function itself, which has a particular kind of growth. Most pundits referring to something as "exponentially larger" are using self-contradictory terminology. Or, as I said in another column several years ago, "My savings account is growing exponentially, but it is not growing very fast."

As others have pointed out, the misuse of quantum to imply large probably had its origins in the sudden and instantaneous nature of the transition; thus the rate is high, even if the distance (or energy differential) is not.

American Hawk As used, however, a black guy with roots in Haiti born in Canada is "African American", while a white guy that immigrated to the United States from South Africa isn't. What ever happened to 'black'?

Well this just begs the question. That white guy, is that you Hawkie? Or are you from north of the Limpopo?

The original post and all of the follow-ups are, as far as I can see, completely bizarre. How can you spend time reading a lack of logic into a perfectly obvious expression with a generally accepted meaning? "The exception that proves the rule" means "The exception that BECOMES the rule." It's so obvious, so crystal clear. What is wrong with you people? It's the exception that is from thenceforward demonstrated to be the actual rule in a forever-refined process of scientific inquiry.

Ah, egbert: "It's an American who happens to think their gay... And how about the Feminazis? Why don't they just relax and except who they are..."

Yeah, and what about pink monkeys? And rubber bands!

You, sir, are clearly the acception that proves the drool. Sorry, I mean they're drool.

Max Stirner nailed all these ethereal 'spooks' very early on. Examples that are not grounded in concrete reality remain simply abstract spook words barely worth mentioning.
Its a simple matter to ground a common expression like this and that is put it in context that people can visualize.

' Kevin Drum being thought of as straight is the EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE that most right-wing pundit idiots are flaming fags.'

There you go. Everyone can see that act you put on.

LOL -- okay, let's split some more hairs.

Bob G has provided a pretty fair example of a distinction without a difference, which is my working definition of showing off rather than being useful.

He objects to my use of 'exponential' to mean "a whole fucking lot bigger" because it actually refers to the FUNCTION, whatever that means, which in turn he then explains denotes "a particular kind of growth".

Namely, a 'whole fucking lot.'

Things can be exponentially smaller, too, of course, but that's the point: the nature of an exponent is that it compounds, no? As endless historians point out, George Washington could move no faster from Virginia to Boston than Julius Caesar could from the Rubicon to Rome -- same basic technology over 20 centuries: horses, roads, etc. Then somebody invented the steam engine, and somebody else invented railroads, and then the internal combustion engine, and cars, planes, and so on: now a few hundred people have orbitted the earth in less time than it took Washington OR Caesar to cross town, an acceleration that took just 2 centuries after, what? the horse was domesticated like 1500 bce?

Sounds exponential to me, cuz you couldn't have gone much faster on rails if you didn't have a steam engine, and you wouldn't have invented the internal combustion engine if there weren't steam engines to work from, and you can't fly a plane with a steam engine, so... - and what's more, using 'exponential' to denote thataccelerating pace is precisely USEFUL, which is the key, right?

(I swore I wasn't gonna do this, but...) For all his knuckleheaded bigotry, American Hawk raises an interesting point -- which he fails to make for a lot of reasons, among 'em that he's a bigoted knucklehead.

"African-American" is a term more or less used to denote the same folks who used to self-identify as blacks, Negros, and colored people. The most inclusive term (even more inclusive than African-American) is 'people of color'. It can be an unreasonably touchy subject, but from a purely linguistic point of view it's curious: why (and how) do the terms change for essentially the same bunch of people?

Those steadily changing terms (once a generation or so: "Afro-American" just sounds like a Nehru jacket) are not the kind of showing off that Kevin did, begging the question in his example of an exception that 'proves' the rule.

So it IS a question whether a new term actually makes a useful distinction, in what passes for an American 'dialogue' about race.

John Higham the historian likes to counter Teddy Roosevelt, who objected to hyphenated Americanism as necessarily lessening the American-ness of anybody who was hyphenated: Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, and so on, were all LESS American because they qualified it in some way, said Teddy. Higham argued the opposite was true, in a way that I think TR himself would have agreed with because of what it says about America: the hyphen UNITES, Higham likes to say. When somebody identifies as an Irish-American, they're saying that you can be BOTH Irish, and American -- which is pretty much a uniquely American fact of life.

But that actually depends upon the voluntary nature of immigration to the United States, as an historical fact: the Italians, Germans, Irish, even British who came here and became Americans CHOSE to do so.

"African-Americans", in the most common use of the term, are largely (but not exclusively) descendants of the Middle Passage and thus, not part of that voluntary immigration.

In the past generation or two, there has been a gradually larger (n.b., NOT exponential) increase in voluntary immigration from Africa -- Nigeria and Senegal, in particular (also Cameroon, Ethiopia and Somalia, although refugees are a different category). Back in 1990 when all this started, more or less, I predicted that in the 21st century, "African-American" will come to be be used denote Americans BORN in Africa, while the more inclusive "people of color" will be more useful to replace the old-fashioned term 'black', which in any case will have been thoroughly eroded by Caribbean and Latino influences.

But that's not an exception that proves the rule; nor does it beg the question. It's recognizing when a term is useful for its PURPOSE -- to denote meaningful distinctions.

Make sense.

"people of color"

Hate this term. I mean, are there any people anywhere who can be described as being "not of color?" Isn't this term really shorthand for something like "people of (a) color (other than pinkish/light brown/white)?" Doesn't this term by implication set one color group as the standard, the one that doesn't need mentioning, that pinkish/light brown/white group? Or is that group the exception that proves the rule?

It looks like most of you have too much respect for rules.

Very few rules are hard and fast and these were mostly not known with certainty a few hundred (or few thousand) years ago.

If you have identified an exception then there must be a rule of thumb to accompany it. When you say "Christ/Zeus that's weird" there must be a more normal course that you expected. You have a new rule and you can write it down and become a famous natural philospher like Pliny.

Anyone interested in Roman games of chance based on dice: Lindsey Davis' excellent 'The Venus Throw' - part of her wildly entertaining "Didius Falco' series. The Romans were a society of compulsive gamblers.

He's right. In Middle English and Early Modern English, the sole meaning of prove was "to test," not "to determine to be correct." Even modern dictionaries provide that definition as an alternative: Merriam-Webster online has "to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of."

Posted by: Robert Silvey

The original meaning survives nicely in baking where one 'proves' - that is tests - one's yeast for viability before adding it to the other ingredients.

For the love of god. Stop. Just stop. you clearly don't get that language cant' be ruled by formal bodies. It is governed by the entire populace of the dialect being spoken. If we keep saying "irregardless" and we all know what it means and what we're saying, it becomes a word whether your snobby stuck-up ass thinks it is or not. If we all decide to start calling cats "Galbins" tomorrow, then they become Galbins. That's how it works.

I try to explain this every time some language-moron tries to enforce "rules" on the evolution of language, but language has always changed. It has to change for our thought process to become more complez. Without altering language, we won't have "names" for anything, because these names generally evolved from longer expressions. So "That four legged hoofed animal with horns" became "that Bull". See how that works? How much easier it is to combine many ideas into a single word? Now I can think "That bull is eating grass" And it requires a great deal less time and energy than thinking "That four legged hoofed animal with horns is putting that slender green stuff on the ground into it's mouth and moving it's small white bony things in it's mouth up and down until it can push it down it's neck tube".

See how much longer it took to say that and type that and read that than it did the original statement? You're trying to prevent other people from making our language even more complex just so you can feel smarter than you really are. You're language creationists. So like I said. Just fucking stop.

Begs the question is another such re-interpreted adage. It did NOT originally mean leads to or provokes an additional questions, which is what always seems natural to me...
From Wikipedia
=============================
Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name petitio principii, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.

Today, the phrase is also frequently seen in a different usage with the meaning "raise the question." In academic contexts this use is rare and widely regarded as incorrect, but it has nevertheless become very common in the news media.
=====================================

As endless historians point out, George Washington could move no faster from Virginia to Boston than Julius Caesar could from the Rubicon to Rome -- same basic technology over 20 centuries: horses, roads, etc. Then somebody invented the steam engine, and somebody else invented railroads, and then the internal combustion engine, and cars, planes, and so on: now a few hundred people have orbitted the earth in less time than it took Washington OR Caesar to cross town, an acceleration that took just 2 centuries after, what? the horse was domesticated like 1500 bce?

Railways were in use in antiquity, and began reappearing in Europe in the 16th Century; the steam engine was invented in the 1st Century A.D., and more modern steam engines were a hot topic before Washington was born, from about the mid- to late-17th Century; the first self propelled steam vehicle was produced before the American Revolution—so your suggestion that the whole progression from steam engine -> railroads -> space shuttles occurred after Washington is, well, somewhat inaccurate, both in the order of events and the timeframe over which they occurred.

Gotta love Dice -- in a discussion about pedantry, he figured he needs to BE another example.

No, no, no. Everyone has it all wrong.

The WORST case of screwed up expressions is "I could care less." Gawd Almighty. I think people say it because of the way the 2 hard 'c's sound together--they have some impact. But it means the opposite of what they intend. I mean, is it really so hard to say, "I couldn't care less"?

I remember this expression, done correctly, being big in the late 70s and early 80s. Then some people (lazy, lazy people) started getting it wrong, didn't care that they were screwing it up, and liked the way it sounded. Since most people are lazy and sloppy in their communication, it stuck. Ugh.

Amen.

I prefer clarity to showing off.

Readers familiar with your prima donna act will marvel at these delusional words.

Way to live up to your monicker.

An exception that is well-known for being exceptional supports the validity of the tendency. That Beethoven is famous for being a deaf composer is evidence that most composers aren't deaf. That Napoleon is famous for being a very short general suggests generals tend not to be very short.

Exceptions can help you notice "rules" (i.e., tendencies). For example, you might not notice that Japanese people are generally not raging egomaniacs until you notice that Yoko Ono is an exception.

(By the way, according to David Letterman, one of the Top Ten Duties of the Emperor of Japan is "Make sure Yoko Ono's U.S. citizenship is kept up to date.")

LOL -- alas, aging Boomers. I had to explain to my 13 year old the other day, when he read a bumper sticker: "Still pissed at Yoko."

prescription pharmacy online prescription pharmacy online

Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy store