Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
argumentum ad auctoritatem
267 views
Skip to first unread message
jsqu...@gmail.com
Mar 15, 2012, 12:45:44 AM3/15/12
to
Why not
"argumentum auctoritate"?
After all,
the fallacy is that of arguing from authority
not that of arguing to, or at, authority.
Is it not?
"argumentum auctoritate"?
After all,
the fallacy is that of arguing from authority
not that of arguing to, or at, authority.
Is it not?
Johannes Patruus
Mar 15, 2012, 4:11:32 AM3/15/12
to
http://www.google.com/search?q="argumentum ad" "appeal to"
Patruus
jsqu...@gmail.com
Mar 15, 2012, 10:58:30 PM3/15/12
to
On Mar 15, 12:11 am, Johannes Patruus <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Patruus
Yes, I agree. It took me a while to realize
that the English connotations of "to" can
be very similar to those of "ad", and that
oddly enough "to" and "from" can
reflect each other.
It is, in my mind, a bit like
"cleave unto'
and
"cleave apart"
where we have "cleave" meaning to cut and
also to join.
As always thanks.
> On 15/03/2012 04:45, jsqua...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Why not
>
> > "argumentum auctoritate"?
>
> > After all,
> > the fallacy is that of arguing from authority
> > not that of arguing to, or at, authority.
> > Is it not?
>
> "Argumentum ad" can sometimes best be thought of as "appeal to" -http://www.google.com/search?q="argumentum ad" "appeal to"
>
> > Why not
>
> > "argumentum auctoritate"?
>
> > After all,
> > the fallacy is that of arguing from authority
> > not that of arguing to, or at, authority.
> > Is it not?
>
>
> Patruus
Yes, I agree. It took me a while to realize
that the English connotations of "to" can
be very similar to those of "ad", and that
oddly enough "to" and "from" can
reflect each other.
It is, in my mind, a bit like
"cleave unto'
and
"cleave apart"
where we have "cleave" meaning to cut and
also to join.
As always thanks.
John W Kennedy
Mar 16, 2012, 10:11:23 AM3/16/12
to
--
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
jsqu...@gmail.com
Mar 16, 2012, 11:21:38 AM3/16/12
to
On Mar 16, 6:11 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
Can you elaborate?
It would make sense to me that they
originally were different words.
My own brief exploration shows that
"cleave" has been a single word with different
meanings for a long time. Many dictionaries list
a (1) and a (2) meaning with the former
being "cut" and the latter being "join".
On the other hand, the
two meanings, way back, were given
to different PIE roots.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cleave
It would make sense to me that they
originally were different words.
My own brief exploration shows that
"cleave" has been a single word with different
meanings for a long time. Many dictionaries list
a (1) and a (2) meaning with the former
being "cut" and the latter being "join".
On the other hand, the
two meanings, way back, were given
to different PIE roots.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cleave
Johannes Patruus
Mar 16, 2012, 11:50:05 AM3/16/12
to
complex. The beginnings of each are quoted toward the end of this post -
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/702.html
Patruus
Ed Cryer
Mar 16, 2012, 3:19:23 PM3/16/12
to
Ed
jsqu...@gmail.com
Mar 17, 2012, 11:49:07 AM3/17/12
to
thank you.
0 new messages