Did Truong Take the Fifth?
samsloan
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.
Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?
It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).
Does anybody know the answer to this?
Sam Sloan
Gordon Burditt
>during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.
>
>Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?
>
>It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
>refusing to answer some questions but not others.
Why? Depending on the situation, the answers to some questions can
incriminate you. The answers to others cannot. It is likely that
only the person answering the questions knows which is which.
>If one wants to take
>the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
>identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
>(unless the law has changed in the last few years).
That doesn't make any sense.
There's a large difference between admitting that you were at the
museum at a specific time (the police saw you among hundreds of
others there and questioned and searched you at the time, so you
might as well admit it), and admitting that YOU were the one who
stole the missing diamond.
jkh001
I believe you're confusing the Miranda-warning "right to remain
silent" with the assertion Fifth-Amendment rights while under oath.
They're not quite the same thing.
samsloan
Are you a lawyer? If you are not a lawyer you should not attempt to
answer this question because this is a very technical question with a
lot of case law on it.
It is established that one who invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege
cannot testify about part of a criminal transaction and remain silent
about the other events.
The proper Fifth Amendment answer to such a question might be "I must
decline to answer that question because it might establish a chain of
events tending to incriminate me".
In the example you cite, the questions might go as follows:
Q: Were you in the museum on the night of May 16.
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Did you steal the Hope Diamond that disappeared on the night of May
16?
A: I must decline to answer that question on the ground that it might
tend to incriminate me.
Obviously, this line of questioning contains a virtual admission that
he did steal the Hope Diamond. Therefore the witness must take the
Fifth on both the first and the second question.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
"The assertion of the privilege against self incrimination must be
raised in response to each specific inquiry or it is waived. Each
assertion of the privilege rests on its own
circumstances. Blanket assertions of the privilege are not permitted.
See, United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5th Cir. 1979);
Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Tex.
1962)." -- "FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION IN CIVIL
CASES," Gary A. Udashen & Barry Sorrels, P.C.
"Refusal to testify in a civil case
"While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are
consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil
action.
"The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse
to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.”
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice
Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case,
‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” Id. at
319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149,
153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered
evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the
circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).
"In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against
Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of
the Fifth Amendment privilege."
(From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth.)
MrVidmar
None
Classic Sam, throw some shit on the ceiling and see what sticks. Then
dance around as some of it comes back to earth.
Deadrat
035ab1...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
This rule applies only to testimiony before a federal grand jury.
>
> Sam Sloan
Deadrat
@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
No, you may invoke your right to remain silent at any time during an
interrogation. In fact, once you ask for a lawyer, the police are supposed
to be the ones that stop talking.
parrt...@cs.com
Pleading the 5th is not a "privilege" as claimed below. It is a
right. Moreover, this right predates our Constitution. It is a right
because we as men enjoy such by virtue of our status as men. It is
called natural right.
Yours, Larry Parr
"The assertion of the privilege against self incrimination must be
raised in response to each specific inquiry or it is waived. Each
assertion of the privilege rests on its own circumstances. Blanket
assertions of the privilege are not permitted. See, United States v.
White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5th Cir. 1979); Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.
2d 518, 523 (Tex. 1962)." -- "FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION IN CIVIL CASES," Gary A. Udashen & Barry Sorrels, P.C.
"The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse
to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.”
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice
Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case,
‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” Id. at
319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149,
153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered
evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the
circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).
(From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth.) -- JKH
Rob
That is why he is widely know as "Shitty Sam"
None
> TAKING THE 5th
>
> Pleading the 5th is not a "privilege" as claimed below. It is a
> right. Moreover, this right predates our Constitution. It is a right
> because we as men enjoy such by virtue of our status as men. It is
> called natural right.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian slip.
LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that tropical shit
hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you have abandoned,
women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may not have been clear
about it but subsequent amendments have made it clear even to a bigot
like you.
jkh001
"Privilege" is the correct legal term. If you don't like it, argue
with the Supreme Court (see http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/424/case.html,
for example).
jkh001
Like Sam, you seem to be confusing custodial interrogation with
testimony under oath. The rules for these two are different, though
they both derive from the same 5th-Amendment source.
Deadrat
news:796fb253-a7b7-4a95...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
I'm not confused about the two, although perhaps my post was confusing.
Sam speculated that one "cannot take the Fifth selectively, refusing to
answer some questions but not others."
You then speculated back that Sam was confusing your right to remain
silent during cutodial interrogation with your right to refuse to testify
when your testimony may incriminate you.
I then jumped in to speculate that you meant that Sam was confused
because you indeed have no right to answer selectively after your Miranda
warning but you do have the right to answer selectively based on avoiding
self-incrimination.
Hmmm, I'll speculate that I've only made things less understandable.
In any case, you may decide which police questions you'll answer and
which you won't. Except before federal grand juries, you may invoke your
5th Amendment right on a question by question basis. The police don't
get to demand a reason for your refusal to answer, and as I said, once
you ask for a lawyer, the police are supposed to stop asking you
questions altogether. Your invocation of the 5th must be based on your
reasonable fear that your testimony will get you into criminal hot water.
For instance, you can't invoke the 5th solely because you're afraid
you'll be embarrassed. The court may decide whether your invocation is
proper but may not demand an explanation that's tantamount to letting the
cat out of the criminal bag.
samsloan
Like John Hillery usually is, he has no idea what he is talking about.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
That's quite correct. It also bears little resemblance to what you
wrote, but I'll concede that, unlike Sam, you do understand the
subject..
jkh001
Try reading "Constitutional Law for Low-Grade Sub-Morons," Sam. After
you've finished with the murder of Cock Robin, try reading some of the
legal citations I gave you. You won't understand them, but try.
Some people question Darwin's theory of evolution, but Sam provides
ample evidence that the missing link walks the earth.
Deadrat
news:b16e30c9-fad7-4bc4...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 22, 12:31�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote
>> innews:796fb253-a7b7-4a95-a335-c3c12a42b350
In this thread I've said 1) that you may stop answering police questions
any time you wish and 2) that you may do the same in court in response to
questions that might incriminate you (unless you're in front of a federal
grand jury).
Sometimes the fault lies with the transmitter.
But not always.
MrVidmar
You can assert the privilege before a Grand Jury. However, if the
prosecutor gives a grant of immunity ya gotta answer.
Deadrat
news:XK2dnXlXzoCGf33X...@giganews.com:
Perhaps it was unclear, but the "unless" clause applies to stopping your
testimony, not to asserting your privilege. Of course you may assert the
5th Amendment before a grand jury, but if it's a federal grand jury you
are deemed to have waived your privilege if you answer any questions
beyond those that establish your identity. In other words, you can't
give substantive answers to a federal grand jury and then decide to
assert the 5th Amendment.
> However, if the
> prosecutor gives a grant of immunity ya gotta answer.
OF course. Once you've got immunity, you're no longer in danger of
incriminating yourself.
parrt...@cs.com
<So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian slip.
LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that tropical shit
hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you have abandoned,
women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may not have been clear
about it but subsequent amendments have made it clear even to a bigot
like you.> "Joe Schmoe"
"All men are created equal" must now be -- in Stan Booz-boohooing --
"All people are created equal" or"All humans are created equal." Stan
is a silly man.
<"Privilege" is the correct legal term. If you don't like it, argue
with the Supreme Court (see http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/424/case.html,
for example). -- JKH
John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to vitiate
a natural right. He tells me to argue with our Court. Why? We can
all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering our
government and limiting its power, which has become so very far-
reaching.
So what? My subject was natural right.
Yours, Larry Parr
Jürgen R.
> John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to vitiate
> a natural right. He tells me to argue with our Court. Why? We can
> all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering our
> government and limiting its power, which has become so very far-
> reaching.
>
> So what? My subject was natural right.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
Evan's PARRot thinks he can define 'natural right' and educate us
accordingly.
The 'natural right' in question was not in the Holy Constitution originally
and
in the relevant Holy Amendment it says:
"No person shall .... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself..."
In the Holy Amendment to the Holy Unalterable Constitution a 'person' is, of
course, not
what you and I might think of as person. A person was, to the Champions of
Liberty, the
Holy Framers of the Holy Document, a Free White Male. Other entities
obviously have
neither natural nor legal rights.
Note also that the Holy Amendment says explicitly 'in any criminal case'.
Only the Holy Fathers Scalia and Thomas really know what the Holy
Constitution
means.
[...]
Dexter Sinister
> BAM-BOOZ-LING
>
>
> <So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian slip.
> LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that tropical shit
> hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you have abandoned,
> women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may not have been clear
> about it but subsequent amendments have made it clear even to a bigot
> like you.> "Joe Schmoe"
>
> "All men are created equal" must now be -- in Stan Booz-boohooing --
> "All people are created equal" or"All humans are created equal." Stan
> is a silly man.
>
> <"Privilege" is the correct legal term. If you don't like it, argue
> with the Supreme Court (see http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/424/case.html,
> for example). -- JKH
>
> John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to vitiate
> a natural right. He tells me to argue with our Court. Why? We can
> all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering our
> government and limiting its power, which has become so very far-
> reaching.
>
> So what? My subject was natural right.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
Perhaps it's brain dead.
Dexter Sinister
None
>
Yeah. Thomas. That Free White Man.--DS
Yes the last unprotected minority in the USA.
Deadrat
news:hbrngu$ktn$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> [...]
>> John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to vitiate
>> a natural right. He tells me to argue with our Court. Why? We can
>> all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering
>> our government and limiting its power, which has become so very far-
>> reaching.
>>
>> So what? My subject was natural right.
>>
>> Yours, Larry Parr
>>
>
> Evan's PARRot thinks he can define 'natural right' and educate us
> accordingly.
>
> The 'natural right' in question was not in the Holy Constitution
> originally and
> in the relevant Holy Amendment it says:
>
> "No person shall .... be compelled in any criminal case to be a
> witness against himself..."
>
> In the Holy Amendment to the Holy Unalterable Constitution a 'person'
> is, of course, not
> what you and I might think of as person. A person was, to the
> Champions of Liberty, the
> Holy Framers of the Holy Document, a Free White Male. Other entities
> obviously have neither natural nor legal rights.
But we've moved on since then.
>
> Note also that the Holy Amendment says explicitly 'in any criminal
> case'.
But since testimony in civil trials may be used in criminal ones, you may
not be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence in a civil trial.
<snip/>
jkh001
What on earth are you raving about, Larry? "Privilege against self-
incrimination" is the proper legal term. If you want to argue that
such protection is a "fundamental human right," which existed prior to
and independently of the U.S. 5th Amendment (and the equivalent
Judges' Rules in England, adopted at about the same time), you are
certainly free to do so, but that's an abstract philosophical
argument, quite distinct from the proper use of language. There are
some problems with that argument -- those rules were adopted precisely
to prevent the long-established practice of extracting confessions by
duress, so you'd have to argue that the "fundamental right" always
existed but no one knew about it until the 1780s -- but it's not
impossible to make. But I, at least, have no interest in debating
philosophy with you. Too much like wrestling with a greased pig.
None
>
> What on earth are you raving about, Larry? "Privilege against self-
> incrimination" is the proper legal term. If you want to argue that
> such protection is a "fundamental human right," which existed prior to
> and independently of the U.S. 5th Amendment (and the equivalent
> Judges' Rules in England, adopted at about the same time), you are
> certainly free to do so, but that's an abstract philosophical
> argument, quite distinct from the proper use of language. There are
> some problems with that argument -- those rules were adopted precisely
> to prevent the long-established practice of extracting confessions by
> duress, so you'd have to argue that the "fundamental right" always
> existed but no one knew about it until the 1780s -- but it's not
> impossible to make. But I, at least, have no interest in debating
Chuckle. Larry gets older but he doesn't get better.
help bot
> <So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian slip.
> LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that tropical shit
> hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you have abandoned,
> women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may not have been clear
> about it but subsequent amendments have made it clear even to a bigot
> like you.
> "All men are created equal" must now be -- in Stan Booz-boohooing --
> "All people are created equal" or"All humans are created equal." Stan
> is a silly man.
It seems to me that Mr. Booz has failed to take
into account the sweeping changes which have
occured since Mr. Parr's heyday, some sixty-five
or seventy years ago.
Back then, it was /normal/ to talk about "men" as
having rights, being equal (so long as they were of
the proper color and religious persuasion), and so
forth; that is just the way people talked in those
times.
> <"Privilege" is the correct legal term. If you don't like it, argue
> with the Supreme Court (seehttp://supreme.justia.com/us/402/424/case.html,
> for example). -- JKH
> John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to vitiate
> a natural right. He tells me to argue with our Court. Why? We can
> all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering our
> government and limiting its power, which has become so very far-
> reaching.
>
> So what? My subject was natural right.
Larry "fast Eddie" Parr seems to think that archives
do not exist, or that nobody can access them. Here,
for the record, is what Slick Larry /actually/ wrote:
> TAKING THE 5th
> Pleading the 5th is not a "privilege" as claimed below. It is a
> right.
As is plainly obvious to all but the the very dimmest
of minds, Mr. Parr crafted a /false dichotomy/ in which
one must choose between the labels of natural right,
or legal priviledge-- one or the other, but not both. It
goes without saying that the dim-bulb was mistaken;
his occasional Libertarian rants seem tossed in as an
afterthought, like sprinkling unground black pepper
kernels on a chef salad.
Mr. Parr's "subject" matter was clearly taking the
fifth, as he put in caps as the subject header.
At any rate, I think it was incorrect for Mr. Booz to
arbitrarily decide that Mr. Parr's archaic use of lan-
guage was a Freudian slip; a Freudian slip would be
what one might call a sentence in which the lame-
brained Mr. Parr were to write something like:
"...the five time U.S. Champion Larry Evans found
mathematical *POOF* that there was less unfair-
ness and consequently, more other stuff"; /that/
would be a Freudian slip.
-- help bot
help bot
> In the Holy Amendment to the Holy Unalterable Constitution
> a 'person' is, of course, not what you and I might think of as
> person. A person was, to the Champions of Liberty, the Holy
> Framers of the Holy Document, a Free White Male. Other
> entities obviously have neither natural nor legal rights.
In some U.S. states, a person had very limited rights
unless "he" posessed property (i.e. land). Taking all
additional factors into account, it might even be said
that a "person" had to be a wealthy, free, white,
Protestant male.
But you are mistaken to assert that "others" had no
legal rights; as everyone knows, a man could not beat
his wife with a switch larger in diameter than his own
thumb. These are modernistic humanitarians we are
talking about here, not savages and barbarians... .
-- help bot
ChessFire
> On Oct 22, 11:14 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > <So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian slip.
> > LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that tropical shit
> > hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you have abandoned,
> > women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may not have been clear
> > about it but subsequent amendments have made it clear even to a bigot
> > like you.
> > "All men are created equal" must now be -- in Stan Booz-boohooing --
> > "All people are created equal" or"All humans are created equal." Stan
> > is a silly man.
>
> It seems to me that Mr. Booz has failed to take
> into account the sweeping changes which have
> occured since Mr. Parr's heyday, some sixty-five
> or seventy years ago.
>
> Back then, it was /normal/ to talk about "men" as
> having rights, being equal (so long as they were of
> the proper color and religious persuasion), and so
> forth; that is just the way people talked in those
> times.
<snort>
O... the failure of classical education these days...
Latin: Vir = man, Homo = people or mankind.
Originally a loan word from the Greek [Homos], current [cant] use
almost random in American English.
cit. lit. Homo Sapiens; "the single human species of the genus Homo."
Hominis est errare: to err is human.
cit. lit. Vir et uxor; husband and wife.
Vir bonus dicendi peritus; "a good man skilled in the art of
speaking."
cit. lit. viritim; "man by man"
cit. lit. virtute fideque; "by virtue and faith".
> > <"Privilege" is the correct legal term. If you don't like it, argue
> > with the Supreme Court (seehttp://supreme.justia.com/us/402/424/case.html,
> > for example). -- JKH
Introduced into current English as PRIVE; private, secret, from Anglo.
Norm, and can also be a verb - evidently the use of the word indicates
the right to maintain a secret.
Til gentilmen and yomanry
Thei have thaim all thei ar worthy,
Those that are privé.
MS. Cantab Ff v 48 f. 50
> > John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to vitiate
> > a natural right. He tells me to argue with our Court. Why? We can
> > all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering our
> > government and limiting its power, which has become so very far-
> > reaching.
>
> > So what? My subject was natural right.
>
> Larry "fast Eddie" Parr seems to think that archives
> do not exist, or that nobody can access them. Here,
> for the record, is what Slick Larry /actually/ wrote:
>
> > TAKING THE 5th
> > Pleading the 5th is not a "privilege" as claimed below. It is a
> > right.
>
> As is plainly obvious to all but the the very dimmest
> of minds, Mr. Parr crafted a /false dichotomy/ in which
> one must choose between the labels of natural right,
> or legal priviledge-- one or the other, but not both. It
> goes without saying that the dim-bulb was mistaken;
That is a very improper use of 'goes without saying' since you had to
say it - and the trope is actually meaningless in common speech being
used as John uses it here in a self-contradictory way. He would have
been better off with the Latin sine qua non, which does /not/ mean
goes without saying, but "without which not" or "a necessity" or an
indispensable condition.
Thereby you encounter the semiotic difficulties of cant speech
compounded with legal-Latin - which has only rarely any actual sense
as language. Use of pro se is an example; taken legally as "for
oneself" it actually means "of itself." Similarly the word privilege
in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
retained.
Now and again vast amount of such tropes must regained to the
langauage by the greater and natural force which is obviously superior
to any restricted or partial use, just as is all language superior to
what lawyers or other specialists have to say within their own
specialty.
Thereby what is natural can be argued against whatever the supreme
court says, since it supercedes and transcends unnatural
delimitations, and ipso facto, you cannot adjudicate transcendent
factors of the law with the law. Certainly Thoreau would agree this
point, even agree it with Erasmus.
I hope you will consider all these points; that is to say, con sidere
[L] "with the stars", to take not your preference of meaning, but
relate the subject to canonical references to which everyone has
access and where opinion is of little matter compared with viewing the
thing itself within the right semiotic frame.
Phil Innes
Deadrat
news:ef0ddf29-5231-4249...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 24, 1:01�am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 11:14�pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian
>> > slip. LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that
>> > tropical shit hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you
>> > have abandoned, women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may
>> > not have been clear about it but subsequent amendments have made it
>> > clear even to a bigot like you.
>> > "All men are created equal" must now be -- in Stan Booz-boohooing
>> > -- "All people are created equal" or"All humans are created equal."
>> > �Sta
> n
>> > is a silly man.
>>
>> � It seems to me that Mr. Booz has failed to take
>> into account the sweeping changes which have
>> occured since Mr. Parr's heyday, some sixty-five
>> or seventy years ago.
>>
>> � Back then, it was /normal/ to talk about "men" as
>> having rights, being equal (so long as they were of
>> the proper color and religious persuasion), and so
>> forth; that is just the way people talked in those
>> times.
>
>
> <snort>
>
> O... the failure of classical education these days...
>
> Latin: Vir = man, Homo = people or mankind.
>
> Originally a loan word from the Greek [Homos], current [cant] use
> almost random in American English.
>
> cit. lit. Homo Sapiens; "the single human species of the genus Homo."
> Hominis est errare: to err is human.
>
> cit. lit. Vir et uxor; husband and wife.
> Vir bonus dicendi peritus; "a good man skilled in the art of
> speaking."
>
> cit. lit. viritim; "man by man"
>
> cit. lit. virtute fideque; "by virtue and faith".
This <snort> seems to miss the point completely.
The question is whether English usage allows the word "men" to designate
humans of either sex. No matter what words the Romans used to designate
individuals or populations,
>> > <"Privilege" is the correct legal term. If you don't like it, argue
>> > with the Supreme Court
>> > (seehttp://supreme.justia.com/us/402/424/case.ht
> ml,
>> > for example). -- JKH
>
> Introduced into current English as PRIVE; private, secret, from Anglo.
> Norm, and can also be a verb - evidently the use of the word indicates
> the right to maintain a secret.
>
> Til gentilmen and yomanry
> Thei have thaim all thei ar worthy,
> Those that are priv�.
>
> MS. Cantab Ff v 48 f. 50
The earliest forms of the word "privilege" come to us through Middle
English. The etymology is Latin: privus (a single individual) + lex
(law).
>> > John Hillery tells us what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to
>> > vitiate a natural right. �He tells me to argue with our Court.
>> > �Why? �We can
>> > all agree that now the Constitution is dead as a document ordering
>> > our government and limiting its power, which has become so very
>> > far- reaching.
>>
>> > � � � � So what? �My subject was natural right.
>>
>> � Larry "fast Eddie" Parr seems to think that archives
>> do not exist, or that nobody can access them. �Here,
>> for the record, is what Slick Larry /actually/ wrote:
>>
>> > TAKING THE 5th
>> > � � �Pleading the 5th is not a "privilege" as claimed below. �I
> t is a
>> > right.
>>
>> � As is plainly obvious to all but the the very dimmest
>> of minds, Mr. Parr crafted a /false dichotomy/ in which
>> one must choose between the labels of natural right,
>> or legal priviledge-- one or the other, but not both. � It
>> goes without saying that the dim-bulb was mistaken;
>
> That is a very improper use of 'goes without saying' since you had to
> say it - and the trope is actually meaningless in common speech being
> used as John uses it here in a self-contradictory way. He would have
> been better off with the Latin sine qua non, which does /not/ mean
> goes without saying, but "without which not" or "a necessity" or an
> indispensable condition.
Is this an elaborate joke that I don't get? Something that goes without
saying is something obvious; Something that's sine qua non is something
that cannot be done without. These meanings are orthogonal.
No speaker of idiomatic English would think there's an inherent
contradiction in saying something that goes without saying, but would
rather make the interpretation that the something goes without saying for
anyone with a glimmer of intelligence. Whereas the person addressed is
so dim that he needs the obvious spelled out.
> Thereby you encounter the semiotic difficulties of cant speech
> compounded with legal-Latin - which has only rarely any actual sense
> as language.
The words "rarely," "actual," "sense," and "language" all have readily
accessible meanings in English. The phrase "rarely any actual sense
as language" is semantically empty.
> Use of pro se is an example; taken legally as "for
> oneself" it actually means "of itself."
No, in both Latin and English it means "for himself."
The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
> Similarly the word privilege
> in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
> retained.
The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a grant.
> Now and again vast amount of such tropes must regained to the
> langauage by the greater and natural force which is obviously superior
> to any restricted or partial use, just as is all language superior to
> what lawyers or other specialists have to say within their own
> specialty.
The paragraph above no meaning.
>
> Thereby what is natural can be argued against whatever the supreme
> court says, since it supercedes and transcends unnatural
Supersedes.
> delimitations, and ipso facto, you cannot adjudicate transcendent
> factors of the law with the law. Certainly Thoreau would agree this
> point, even agree it with Erasmus.
Agree it?
What does "adjudicate transcendent factors" mean?
>
> I hope you will consider all these points; that is to say, con sidere
> [L] "with the stars", to take not your preference of meaning, but
> relate the subject to canonical references to which everyone has
> access and where opinion is of little matter compared with viewing the
> thing itself within the right semiotic frame.
Ah, the right semiotic frame. Do you know what you get when you cross a
mafioso and a semiotician? You get some who makes you an offer you can't
understand.
The word "consider" comes from the Latin "considerare," meaning to
consider. The derivation of considerare is con (with) + sidus (star),
but considerare doesn't mean with the stars.
>
> Phil Innes
<snip/>
The Historian
Ah, Innes the language-troll strikes again! "Deadrat", there's much to
be learned from Nearly an IM Innes. After all, before he began posting
the world - or at least the sane part of it - had no idea English had
a "negative case", that Old English was a living language, or that the
word "crapulous" meant "sh*tty language." Taylor Kingston can fill you
in on Innes' insights into German dialects and "Andean Spanish."
None
>
These meanings are orthogonal. --DR
Orthogonal? That makes me so happy I could shit.
jkh001
>
> That is a very improper use of 'goes without saying' since you had to
> say it - and the trope is actually meaningless in common speech being
> used as John uses it here in a self-contradictory way. He would have
> been better off with the Latin sine qua non, which does /not/ mean
> goes without saying, but "without which not" or "a necessity" or an
> indispensable condition.
Read more carefully, Phil. I didn't write that. Greg Kennedy did.
The Historian
Are you sure the man can read at all?
ChessFire
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 1:01 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, 11:14 pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> >> > <So Larry Parr, a well known bigot, engages in another freudian
> >> > slip. LARRY WOMEN ENJOY THESE RIGHTS TOO. Maybe not in that
> >> > tropical shit hole you live in but here in the USA, a country you
> >> > have abandoned, women are treated as equal to men. Jefferson may
> >> > not have been clear about it but subsequent amendments have made it
> >> > clear even to a bigot like you.
> >> > "All men are created equal" must now be -- in Stan Booz-boohooing
> >> > -- "All people are created equal" or"All humans are created equal."
> >> > Sta
> > n
> >> > is a silly man.
>
> >> It seems to me that Mr. Booz has failed to take
>
> > Those that are privé.
>
> > MS. Cantab Ff v 48 f. 50
>
> The earliest forms of the word "privilege" come to us through Middle
> English.
Yes, I think if you mean that would be the sense of Halliwell's
citation and inclusion from in MS. Cantab... the earliest written use
of the word I can find - but the word itself is A.N in origin rather
than directly A. Saxon or Latin.
Although, there is also
PREVE: [a] to prove, [b] a proof
PREVALLY: secretly [Isumbras 641]
PREVELACHE: priviledge [MS. Douce 302 f.4]
but
direct inclusion of borrowed words from Latin rests in such as:
PREVENTION: meaning Jurisdiction [State Papers, i.311] and from
Spanish PREVADO; meaning a private friend. [MS. Harl 4888]
Finally, PRYVATED: deprived [Hall, Richard III f.17]
>The etymology is Latin: privus (a single individual) + lex
> (law).
As legal noun, adjective, and verb of the ~ lex=suffix, stem-words
are also from:
Privilegium
Privilegarius [adj.]
<...>
>
> > That is a very improper use of 'goes without saying' since you had to
> > say it - and the trope is actually meaningless in common speech being
> > used as John uses it here in a self-contradictory way. He would have
> > been better off with the Latin sine qua non, which does /not/ mean
> > goes without saying, but "without which not" or "a necessity" or an
> > indispensable condition.
>
> Is this an elaborate joke that I don't get? Something that goes without
> saying is something obvious;
It is a joke with a couple of people here who would persecute the
writing of others, while being a tad loose about their own
expressions.
But, obvious or implicate?
> Something that's sine qua non is something
> that cannot be done without. These meanings are orthogonal.
I gave my definitions above from the same edition of Webster.
>
> No speaker of idiomatic English would think there's an inherent
> contradiction in saying something that goes without saying, but would
> rather make the interpretation that the something goes without saying for
> anyone with a glimmer of intelligence. Whereas the person addressed is
> so dim that he needs the obvious spelled out.
OK, but you use the word only in a perorative idiom, much as I said
that Lawyers use terms idiomatically, but which are in fact partial
forms.
Consider:
It goes without saying that a mathematician will likely recognise;
89, ?, 233 as sequenced Fibonacci numbers and may even know the
missing number to be 144 without having to calculate it.
There I have used the phrase in a non-pejorative form with two
examples of it.
> > Thereby you encounter the semiotic difficulties of cant speech
> > compounded with legal-Latin - which has only rarely any actual sense
> > as language.
>
> The words "rarely," "actual," "sense," and "language" all have readily
> accessible meanings in English. The phrase "rarely any actual sense
> as language" is semantically empty.
Maybe, better to have written 'have' for 'has' - in other words, legal
Latin has only rarely any actual...
> > Use of pro se is an example; taken legally as "for
> > oneself" it actually means "of itself."
>
> No, in both Latin and English it means "for himself."
If the noun be male, and it is default male.
But I don't like translating pro always as 'for'. Want to split the
difference with 'in favor of'?
> The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
Which is phonetically similar
> > Similarly the word privilege
> > in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
> > retained.
>
> The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a grant.
Quite. One is awarded a right or grant. Whereas the original word
means retained - that it was always yours, not granted.
> > Now and again vast amount of such tropes must regained to the
> > langauage by the greater and natural force which is obviously superior
> > to any restricted or partial use, just as is all language superior to
> > what lawyers or other specialists have to say within their own
> > specialty.
>
> The paragraph above no meaning.
It could do with explication, but there is plenty of meaning in it. It
says words borrowed into some specialty are not superior to their
greater use. They do not attain 'more sense', and in fact can often be
nonsense. Consider the majestic idiocy of:
Old English is dead.
A sentence requiring 4 words of Old English to proclaim itself. A self-
contradictory form of expression which inherently proves the opposite
of what is ostensibly claimed by the sentence.
> > Thereby what is natural can be argued against whatever the supreme
> > court says, since it supercedes and transcends unnatural
>
> Supersedes.
>
> > delimitations, and ipso facto, you cannot adjudicate transcendent
> > factors of the law with the law. Certainly Thoreau would agree this
> > point, even agree it with Erasmus.
>
> Agree it?
Yes. As in fact Thoreau liked to write himself :) That doesn't
mean he liked to write to himself, but that people didn't use as many
conjunctions as we do.
> What does "adjudicate transcendent factors" mean?
Sort out things which transcend the realm sorted.
---
In current usage when people claim a sense to word to their own
discipline or group but which does not accord with greater or original
usage, you can obtain an entirely different meaning:
So that if I say 'you made a few nice points' in your post, I am not
necessarily agreeing with you, but I mean you made some precise
points. We still retain the original sense of 'nice' in the term
'niceties', which are to do with specifics, not pleasantries. Now,
undoubtably being specific /is/ pleasant, so over time the word
changed its general usage.
The new sense of 'nice' will appeal to non-literary people, but
without understanding its origin they will bot be able to read a 4
letter word and understand it except as the current cant meaning of
something pleasant. Of course, Use is Master, but master is often
wrong in any pedantic evaluation, which is where we started at the top
of this thread, with legal cant seeming to contradict literary origin.
> > I hope you will consider all these points; that is to say, con sidere
> > [L] "with the stars", to take not your preference of meaning, but
> > relate the subject to canonical references to which everyone has
> > access and where opinion is of little matter compared with viewing the
> > thing itself within the right semiotic frame.
>
> Ah, the right semiotic frame. Do you know what you get when you cross a
> mafioso and a semiotician? You get some who makes you an offer you can't
> understand.
Image: Umberto Eco with a Lupo? :)
Cordially, Phil Innes
ChessFire
I knew that half way through John, and I thought, I'd better go find
that in case people write in and it effects my permanent record
[besides, we are all trying not to look daft in front of the lawyers
here]
Surprise: Good catch, John!
Cordially, Phil
Taylor Kingston
> On Oct 24, 7:40 pm, jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Oct 24, 6:46 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > That is a very improper use of 'goes without saying' since you had to
> > > say it - and the trope is actually meaningless in common speech being
> > > used as John uses it here in a self-contradictory way. He would have
> > > been better off with the Latin sine qua non, which does /not/ mean
> > > goes without saying, but "without which not" or "a necessity" or an
> > > indispensable condition.
>
> > Read more carefully, Phil. I didn't write that. Greg Kennedy did.
>
> I knew that half way through John,
And yet Phil persisted with the mistaken attribution?
> and I thought, I'd better go find
> that in case people write in and it effects [sic]
> my permanent record
> [besides, we are all trying not to look daft in front of the lawyers
Phil Innes trying not to look daft is like Dolly Parton trying to
pass for Eartha Kitt.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_02/dollyL1102_468x710.jpg
http://www.jalc.org/about/2007_galleries/fallgala07/images/04eartha_kitt.jpg
And with all the daftness and gaffes already on his permanent record
here, one more is like adding a grain of sand to the Sahara.
None
> On Oct 24, 7:40 pm, jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote:
>
Classic ChessFraude, throw some shit on the ceiling and see what
sticks. Then dance around as some of it comes back to earth.
None
wrote:
>
And with all the daftness and gaffes already on his permanent record
here, one more is like adding a grain of sand to the Sahara.
Classic TK, throw some shit on the ceiling and see what sticks. Then
watch ChessFraude dance around as some of it comes back to earth.
Deadrat
news:67926280-4312-4098...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 24, 2:01�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote
>> innews:ef0ddf29-5231-4249-afb8-42d
> 680d...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
<snip/>
>> > That is a very improper use of 'goes without saying' since you had
>> > to say it - and the trope is actually meaningless in common speech
>> > being used as John uses it here in a self-contradictory way. He
>> > would have been better off with the Latin sine qua non, which does
>> > /not/ mean goes without saying, but "without which not" or "a
>> > necessity" or an indispensable condition.
>>
>> Is this an elaborate joke that I don't get? �Something that goes
>> without saying is something obvious;
>
> It is a joke with a couple of people here who would persecute the
> writing of others, while being a tad loose about their own
> expressions.
>
> But, obvious or implicate?
Obvious.
>> Something that's sine qua non is something
>> that cannot be done without. �These meanings are orthogonal.
>
> I gave my definitions above from the same edition of Webster.
There's nothing wrong with your definitions. Things may be obvious without
being necessary and vice versa.
>
>>
>> No speaker of idiomatic English would think there's an inherent
>> contradiction in saying something that goes without saying, but would
>> rather make the interpretation that the something goes without saying
>> for anyone with a glimmer of intelligence. �Whereas the person
>> addressed is so dim that he needs the obvious spelled out.
>
> OK, but you use the word only in a perorative idiom, much as I said
> that Lawyers use terms idiomatically, but which are in fact partial
> forms.
In this one example, it's pejorative (Note the spelling.) You have
contrived an example below in which you claim it's not. Everyone uses
terms "idiomatically," I don't know why "Lawyers" has an initial capital,
and it's unclear what "partial forms" means in this context.
>
> Consider:
>
> It goes without saying that a mathematician will likely recognise;
> 89, ?, 233 as sequenced Fibonacci numbers and may even know the
> missing number to be 144 without having to calculate it.
>
> There I have used the phrase in a non-pejorative form with two
> examples of it.
Thanks for sharing. And this is relevant to the original example, how?
>> > Thereby you encounter the semiotic difficulties of cant speech
>> > compounded with legal-Latin - which has only rarely any actual
>> > sense as language.
>>
>> The words "rarely," "actual," "sense," and "language" all have
>> readily accessible meanings in English. �The phrase "rarely any
>> actual sense as language" is semantically empty.
>
> Maybe, better to have written 'have' for 'has'
Maybe what? Maybe the phrase is meaningless? No "maybe" about it.
Or maybe "have" is better than "has"? No "maybe" about that either.
- in other words, legal Latin has only rarely any actual...
How is this "in other words"?
In fact, legal Latin almost always has an operational meaning. In other
words -- watch how that works when used properly -- if you're not sure what
"certiorari" means, a lawyer can explain it to you by describing what a
court will do.
>
>> > Use of pro se is an example; taken legally as "for
>> > oneself" it actually means "of itself."
>>
>> No, in both Latin and English it means "for himself."
>
> If the noun be male, and it is default male.
So why did you say it means "of itself"?
Just as an aside, you've incorrectly used the subjunctive, which is
reserved for conditions contrary to fact.
>
> But I don't like translating pro always as 'for'. Want to split the
> difference with 'in favor of'?
There's nothing to split. "In favor of" is one meaning of "for." In any
case, the "pro se" does not mean "of itself."
>
>> The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
>
> Which is phonetically similar
Since we're talking semantics, what difference does that make?
>> > Similarly the word privilege
>> > in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
>> > retained.
>>
>> The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a
>> grant.
>
> Quite. One is awarded a right or grant. Whereas the original word
> means retained - that it was always yours, not granted.
Just out of curiosity, which "original word" is that? No matter the
answer, a privilege is not something "retained."
>> > Now and again vast amount of such tropes must regained to the
>> > langauage by the greater and natural force which is obviously
>> > superior to any restricted or partial use, just as is all language
>> > superior to what lawyers or other specialists have to say within
>> > their own specialty.
>>
>> The paragraph above no meaning.
>
> It could do with explication, but there is plenty of meaning in it.
Not under the ordinary use of the word "meaning." What can "Now and
again" possibly suggest? How could "vast amount" be measured, even with
its missing article? "Must regained" isn't English usage. What force?
What verb is missing in "all language superior"? Why is this a universal?
> It
> says words borrowed into some specialty are not superior to their
> greater use. They do not attain 'more sense', and in fact can often be
> nonsense. Consider the majestic idiocy of:
In English, we would say "borrowed by." And I doubt many Enlish speakers
would understand "regained" to describe the ranking of usage.
I can actually parse the explication, but it props up a strawman. No one
argues that the technical meanings of terms are "superior" to their
vernacular. They're different. Of course, they don't attain "'more
sense'" (whatever that means); they have a sense restricted by their field
of use.
>
> Old English is dead.
>
> A sentence requiring 4 words of Old English to proclaim itself. A
> self- contradictory form of expression which inherently proves the
> opposite of what is ostensibly claimed by the sentence.
Nonetheless, no one speaks or writes Old English except possibly in the
study of Old English texts.
>> > Thereby what is natural can be argued against whatever the supreme
>> > court says, since it supercedes and transcends unnatural
>>
>> Supersedes.
>>
>> > delimitations, and ipso facto, you cannot adjudicate transcendent
>> > factors of the law with the law. Certainly Thoreau would agree this
>> > point, even agree it with Erasmus.
>>
>> Agree it?
>
> Yes. As in fact Thoreau liked to write himself :)
Sorry, I don't do emoticons. Perhaps Thoreau himself like to write. So
what?
> That doesn't
> mean he liked to write to himself, but that people didn't use as many
> conjunctions as we do.
But they continue to use prepositions idiomatically. You would be wise to
agree them. (Insert the emoticon of your choice here.)
>
>> What does "adjudicate transcendent factors" mean?
>
> Sort out things which transcend the realm sorted.
But "adjudicate" does not mean "sort out." Using "transcend" to define
"transcendent" tells me nothing. And I still don't know what "factors"
are, except that they're "things."
See the problem yet?
>
> ---
>
> In current usage when people claim a sense to word to their own
> discipline or group but which does not accord with greater or original
> usage, you can obtain an entirely different meaning:
>
> So that if I say 'you made a few nice points' in your post, I am not
> necessarily agreeing with you, but I mean you made some precise
> points. We still retain the original sense of 'nice' in the term
> 'niceties', which are to do with specifics, not pleasantries. Now,
> undoubtably being specific /is/ pleasant, so over time the word
> changed its general usage.
This is entirely unremarkable -- dare I say that it goes without saying? --
and seems entirely irrelevant to your complaints about claims of
superiority.
<snip/>
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
<snip/>
ChessFire
> > But, obvious or implicate?
>
> Obvious.
Not evidently obvious, but I have come to note your preference for
both uncited authority for your opinions, their rather declarative
nature, as if perhaps a conversation revealing any source or reason
would be too onerous?
> >> Something that's sine qua non is something
> >> that cannot be done without. These meanings are orthogonal.
>
> > I gave my definitions above from the same edition of Webster.
>
> There's nothing wrong with your definitions. Things may be obvious without
> being necessary and vice versa.
Indeed! And thing may be cabbages without being either obvious or
necessary.
> >> No speaker of idiomatic English would think there's an inherent
> >> contradiction in saying something that goes without saying, but would
> >> rather make the interpretation that the something goes without saying
> >> for anyone with a glimmer of intelligence. Whereas the person
> >> addressed is so dim that he needs the obvious spelled out.
>
> > OK, but you use the word only in a perorative idiom, much as I said
> > that Lawyers use terms idiomatically, but which are in fact partial
> > forms.
>
> In this one example, it's pejorative (Note the spelling.)
Free advice being a different thing than gratuitous advice; that is,
unnecessary advice. Since I made a typo, and the noted spelling occurs
below.
> You have
> contrived an example below in which you claim it's not. Everyone uses
> terms "idiomatically," I don't know why "Lawyers" has an initial capital,
> and it's unclear what "partial forms" means in this context.
>
>
>
> > Consider:
>
> > It goes without saying that a mathematician will likely recognise;
> > 89, ?, 233 as sequenced Fibonacci numbers and may even know the
> > missing number to be 144 without having to calculate it.
>
> > There I have used the phrase in a non-pejorative form with two
> > examples of it.
>
> Thanks for sharing. And this is relevant to the original example, how?
It is in reference to using a word only in one sense of it, that is,
of cant usage - which is relevant to the original use of the word in
question, and subsequent marginalization of it to some limited and
pejorative, indeed ironic sense. I also use the phrase in a
straightforward way, which you are kind to thank you for a better
example thereof.
> >> > Thereby you encounter the semiotic difficulties of cant speech
> >> > compounded with legal-Latin - which has only rarely any actual
> >> > sense as language.
>
> >> The words "rarely," "actual," "sense," and "language" all have
> >> readily accessible meanings in English. The phrase "rarely any
> >> actual sense as language" is semantically empty.
>
> > Maybe, better to have written 'have' for 'has'
>
> Maybe what? Maybe the phrase is meaningless? No "maybe" about it.
>
> Or maybe "have" is better than "has"? No "maybe" about that either.
I think the matter referenced is legal-Latin, which is a singular
topic, therefore 'has'.
> - in other words, legal Latin has only rarely any actual...
>
> How is this "in other words"?
>
> In fact, legal Latin almost always has an operational meaning.
You mean to say, in the law? Surely, but the issue is not whether that
'operational meaning' has any force in law, but whether the words or
sentences are merely tropes used in the law, and are used otherwise
elsewhere.
> In other
> words -- watch how that works when used properly -- if you're not sure what
> "certiorari" means, a lawyer can explain it to you by describing what a
> court will do.
You press your own point very strongly, and I thank you for it, since
in doing so you illustrate mine.
>
> >> > Use of pro se is an example; taken legally as "for
> >> > oneself" it actually means "of itself."
>
> >> No, in both Latin and English it means "for himself."
>
> > If the noun be male, and it is default male.
>
> So why did you say it means "of itself"?
Because [ROFL]
a] You are arguing with Mario Pei, who is not just any linguist, and
b] I trust to the use of Romance languages which have self-reflexive
verbs, like French, for their own use of 'se', which is as I and Pei
have mentioned.
I note you are a tad vague on your own sourcing, being better at
asserting? It's OK for the hoi-polloi, but this is only to say that
being a line-judge is sort of like being a Supreme Court judge.
> Just as an aside, you've incorrectly used the subjunctive, which is
> reserved for conditions contrary to fact.
No way!?
> > But I don't like translating pro always as 'for'. Want to split the
> > difference with 'in favor of'?
>
> There's nothing to split. "In favor of" is one meaning of "for." In any
> case, the "pro se" does not mean "of itself."
Who is going to tell Webster's dictionary, since in fact they offer
both. For is for sure OK, but it is a tolerably vague conjunction,
suitable for loose connections, whereas to be more specific one would
use the more tedious but accurate phrase Webster's offers, no?
> >> The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
>
> > Which is phonetically similar
>
> Since we're talking semantics, what difference does that make?
I must assume you mean that we are 'talking' semiotics, since the
meaning of the word semantics is 'meaning'. In other words your
sentence asks what difference any meaning makes. Now... if you are
talking general semantics it may be possible to use your
construction... ?
> >> > Similarly the word privilege
> >> > in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
> >> > retained.
>
> >> The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a
> >> grant.
>
> > Quite. One is awarded a right or grant. Whereas the original word
> > means retained - that it was always yours, not granted.
>
> Just out of curiosity, which "original word" is that? No matter the
> answer, a privilege is not something "retained."
Not another assertion without other reference! In fact I have been
noticing that you never reference your opinions - you are some special
metaphysical literat who argues without reference to his self, but is
always right too. You seem to dimly remember that Privilege means
private or secret, and that was the original word, and surely you must
realise that some secrets cannot be commanded! There are at least 3
reasons why this is so; that knowledge of them is unknown [such as
people's general knowledge of the dark side of the moon] or that the
person is unable to express the secret, or that their interlocutor is
unable by lack-a-wit to understand an explanation. In all cases the
matter remains secret and cannot be compelled.
But the large issue here is that there is a difference in being
granted something and retaining it. I think the Constitution mentions
'inalienable rights' which are not so much things granted as things
that cannot be removed or taken away.
> >> > Now and again vast amount of such tropes must regained to the
> >> > langauage by the greater and natural force which is obviously
> >> > superior to any restricted or partial use, just as is all language
> >> > superior to what lawyers or other specialists have to say within
> >> > their own specialty.
>
> >> The paragraph above no meaning.
>
> > It could do with explication, but there is plenty of meaning in it.
>
> Not under the ordinary use of the word "meaning." What can "Now and
> again" possibly suggest?
It could possibly mean 'occasionally'.
> How could "vast amount" be measured, even with
> its missing article?
'A lot.'
> "Must regained" isn't English usage. What force?
The force of usage and custom. This is as true of language as it is in
the law. The idea is that no matter what you legislate or think of
things, you cannot command the tide of actual usage without becoming
fascist and enforcing one and only one understanding, even if a
minority imposes its view on the majority. But if we resent fascist
use, then we will not allow a minority to dictate their idea of
something on what we say or do.
> What verb is missing in "all language superior"?
None, necessarily,
> Why is this a universal?
What is canonical? What is a universal reference that all can aver? We
can all see the Big Dipper, or is it The Plough, or Ursa Major,
whatever we call it we all see the same stars.
> > It
> > says words borrowed into some specialty are not superior to their
> > greater use. They do not attain 'more sense', and in fact can often be
> > nonsense. Consider the majestic idiocy of:
>
> In English, we would say "borrowed by."
You have never seen that construction before? Read much after 10th
grade, did you? In fact the linguistic terms are both 'borrowed into'
and 'loan words'.
You probably always 'speak to' people, and never 'speak with' them?
The disadvantage of the first term is that we don't know if they speak
to you too.
> And I doubt many Enlish speakers
> would understand "regained" to describe the ranking of usage.
Most English speakers in my experience do not much discuss the ranking
of usage. But they would all understand 'regained' to mean something
lost, now recovered.
> I can actually parse the explication, but it props up a strawman. No one
> argues that the technical meanings of terms are "superior" to their
> vernacular. They're different.
They can have different meanings including opposite ones.
> Of course, they don't attain "'more
> sense'" (whatever that means);
I'll tell you. There is no more sense in 'technical explanation' by
virtue of it being borrowed into a technicality.
> they have a sense restricted by their field
> of use.
>
>
>
> > Old English is dead.
>
> > A sentence requiring 4 words of Old English to proclaim itself. A
> > self- contradictory form of expression which inherently proves the
> > opposite of what is ostensibly claimed by the sentence.
>
> Nonetheless, no one speaks or writes Old English except possibly in the
> study of Old English texts.
But my dear fellow! Those 4 words are Old English!
Do you remember Churchill's ...on the beaches peroration? The last 50
words are all 'old' English, save the very last, 'surrender' which is
from Old French.
Neil Armstrong spoke 100% 'old' English as the first words spoken on
the moon.
These words are simply continuous English use, and while spellings
vary, the sounds continue unchanged. The particular form of idiotic
statement Old English is dead has no name! Since those same words
could have been spoken in 709 and 2009.
> >> > Thereby what is natural can be argued against whatever the supreme
> >> > court says, since it supercedes and transcends unnatural
>
> >> Supersedes.
US spelling.
> >> > delimitations, and ipso facto, you cannot adjudicate transcendent
> >> > factors of the law with the law. Certainly Thoreau would agree this
> >> > point, even agree it with Erasmus.
>
> >> Agree it?
>
> > Yes. As in fact Thoreau liked to write himself :)
>
> Sorry, I don't do emoticons. Perhaps Thoreau himself like to write. So
> what?
As Thoreau would have put it... that's what the sentence says.
> > That doesn't
> > mean he liked to write to himself, but that people didn't use as many
> > conjunctions as we do.
>
> But they continue to use prepositions idiomatically. You would be wise to
> agree them. (Insert the emoticon of your choice here.)
/But/ they do idiomatic speech? But what?
>
> >> What does "adjudicate transcendent factors" mean?
>
> > Sort out things which transcend the realm sorted.
>
> But "adjudicate" does not mean "sort out."
'But' again? I could use another word but you have trouble with big
ones, so...
> Using "transcend" to define
> "transcendent" tells me nothing. And I still don't know what "factors"
> are, except that they're "things."
>
> See the problem yet?
Yes. I should use simpler words to you so that you will be less
confused than by reading big ones, which you always challenge by
saying, 'not!' or 'but', offering no sense of your own authority for
word usage, nor why you don't 'get' big words. geddit?
> > ---
>
> > In current usage when people claim a sense to word to their own
> > discipline or group but which does not accord with greater or original
> > usage, you can obtain an entirely different meaning:
>
> > So that if I say 'you made a few nice points' in your post, I am not
> > necessarily agreeing with you, but I mean you made some precise
> > points. We still retain the original sense of 'nice' in the term
> > 'niceties', which are to do with specifics, not pleasantries. Now,
> > undoubtably being specific /is/ pleasant, so over time the word
> > changed its general usage.
>
> This is entirely unremarkable -- dare I say that it goes without saying? --
> and seems entirely irrelevant to your complaints about claims of
> superiority.
You asked me to illustrate a meta-level comment, and I gave the above
as example. Whether that is 'remarkable' to you I could not tell.
What you say about superiority is inevitable, since you do not
illustrate or source your own preferences, and must be obliged to not
understand so very much writing outside your own sphere that you now
are hung up about superior or inferior abilities.
Since it is plain that you are unable to discuss anything in general
terms, nor understand what that is necessary, of course you will also
speak of my 'claims' and so on from your very liberal ignorance of how
to conduct a discussion about a topic, rather than of persons.
Cordially, Phil Innes
Deadrat
news:acf3b4ed-14e9-40fd...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> > But, obvious or implicate?
>>
>> Obvious.
>
> Not evidently obvious, but I have come to note your preference for
> both uncited authority for your opinions, their rather declarative
> nature, as if perhaps a conversation revealing any source or reason
> would be too onerous?
Would it be too onerous for you to look up the meanings? Obvious means
evident; implicate means a necessary result from logical consequence. Not
all implications are obvious. Fermat's Last Theorem is implicate from the
axioms of mathematics, but it's hardly obvious.
<snip nonresponse/>
>
>
>> >> No speaker of idiomatic English would think there's an inherent
>> >> contradiction in saying something that goes without saying, but
>> >> would rather make the interpretation that the something goes
>> >> without saying for anyone with a glimmer of intelligence. �Whereas
>> >> the person addressed is so dim that he needs the obvious spelled
>> >> out.
>>
>> > OK, but you use the word only in a perorative idiom, much as I said
>> > that Lawyers use terms idiomatically, but which are in fact partial
>> > forms.
>>
>> In this one example, it's pejorative (Note the spelling.)
>
> Free advice being a different thing than gratuitous advice; that is,
> unnecessary advice.
It's still free. You may estimate its value at your cost if you wish.
<snip/>
>> �You have
>> contrived an example below in which you claim it's not. �Everyone
>> uses terms "idiomatically," I don't know why "Lawyers" has an initial
>> capital, and it's unclear what "partial forms" means in this context.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Consider:
>>
>> > It goes without saying that a mathematician will likely recognise;
>> > 89, ?, 233 as sequenced Fibonacci numbers and may even know the
>> > missing number to be 144 without having to calculate it.
>>
>> > There I have used the phrase in a non-pejorative form with two
>> > examples of it.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing. �And this is relevant to the original example,
>> how?
>
> It is in reference to using a word only in one sense of it, that is,
> of cant usage - which is relevant to the original use of the word in
> question, and subsequent marginalization of it to some limited and
> pejorative, indeed ironic sense. I also use the phrase in a
> straightforward way,
You've snipped the context, which had something to do with lawyers
(actually, Lawyers) speaking idiomatically. But I doubt the context would
make the explanation any clearer.
> which you are kind to thank you for a better example thereof.
<?/>
>> >> > Thereby you encounter the semiotic difficulties of cant speech
>> >> > compounded with legal-Latin - which has only rarely any actual
>> >> > sense as language.
>>
>> >> The words "rarely," "actual," "sense," and "language" all have
>> >> readily accessible meanings in English. �The phrase "rarely any
>> >> actual sense as language" is semantically empty.
>>
>> > Maybe, better to have written 'have' for 'has'
>>
>> Maybe what? �Maybe the phrase is meaningless? �No "maybe" about it.
>>
>> Or maybe "have" is better than "has"? �No "maybe" about that either.
>
> I think the matter referenced is legal-Latin, which is a singular
> topic, therefore 'has'.
I don't know what you think the "matter referenced" is, but the antecedent
of "have" is (the plural) phrase "the words."
>> - in other words, legal Latin has only rarely any actual...
>>
>> How is this "in other words"?
>>
>> In fact, legal Latin almost always has an operational meaning.
>
> You mean to say, in the law? Surely, but the issue is not whether that
> 'operational meaning' has any force in law, but whether the words or
> sentences are merely tropes used in the law, and are used otherwise
> elsewhere.
The words aren't "merely" tropes; they have operational meanings. And of
course, they're often used "otherwise elsewhere." What I can't get you to
tell me is So what?
>> �In other
>> words -- watch how that works when used properly -- if you're not
>> sure what
>> "certiorari" means, a lawyer can explain it to you by describing what
>> a court will do.
>
> You press your own point very strongly, and I thank you for it, since
> in doing so you illustrate mine.
Not with "certiorari," which, as far as I know, has no vernacular usage.
But what I'm looking for is a clear illustration of your point *from you*
>> >> > Use of pro se is an example; taken legally as "for
>> >> > oneself" it actually means "of itself."
>>
>> >> No, in both Latin and English it means "for himself."
>>
>> > If the noun be male, and it is default male.
>>
>> So why did you say it means "of itself"?
>
> Because [ROFL]
>
> a] You are arguing with Mario Pei, who is not just any linguist, and
> b] I trust to the use of Romance languages which have self-reflexive
> verbs, like French, for their own use of 'se', which is as I and Pei
> have mentioned.
a] I doubt it, but perhaps you could cite Pei's claim that "pro se" means
"of itself."
b] You may place your trust all you want in Romance languages, which
probably have reflexive verbs, but they won't tell you the genitive of
Latin pronouns.
>
> I note you are a tad vague on your own sourcing, being better at
> asserting? It's OK for the hoi-polloi,
You are free to consult a Latin grammar and a Latin dictionary. I like
Cassell's, but you may check another, online if you wish.
By the way, "the hoi-polloi" is redundant, as "hoi" means "the" in Greek.
> but this is only to say that
> being a line-judge is sort of like being a Supreme Court judge.
What does this mean? That citing Romance languages "like French" to
support a claim about Latin grammar is like assuming a line judge (tennis?
football?) is a member of the Supreme Court? Whose members aren't even
judges, but justices.
>
>> Just as an aside, you've incorrectly used the subjunctive, which is
>> reserved for conditions contrary to fact.
>
> No way!?
Way.
(My cite is Wayne Campbell.)
>> > But I don't like translating pro always as 'for'. Want to split the
>> > difference with 'in favor of'?
>>
>> There's nothing to split. �"In favor of" is one meaning of "for." �In
> any
>> case, the "pro se" does not mean "of itself."
>
> Who is going to tell Webster's dictionary, since in fact they offer
> both. For is for sure OK, but it is a tolerably vague conjunction,
> suitable for loose connections, whereas to be more specific one would
> use the more tedious but accurate phrase Webster's offers, no?
Is the the tedious but more accurate phrase "of"? If not, I doubt
Webster's has much value in determining the genitive of a Latin pronoun.
>> >> The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
>>
>> > Which is phonetically similar
>>
>> Since we're talking semantics, what difference does that make?
>
> I must assume you mean that we are 'talking' semiotics, since the
> meaning of the word semantics is 'meaning'.
No, I'm just talking about meaning. You may think you're talking
semiotics, but that just means you're talking nonsense. Need a cite?
Anything that claims to be semiotics.
> In other words your
> sentence asks what difference any meaning makes. Now... if you are
> talking general semantics it may be possible to use your
> construction... ?
No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make to the
meaning of words. And your answer is ...?
>
>> >> > Similarly the word privilege
>> >> > in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
>> >> > retained.
>>
>> >> The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a
>> >> grant.
>>
>> > Quite. One is awarded a right or grant. Whereas the original word
>> > means retained - that it was always yours, not granted.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, which "original word" is that? �No matter the
>> answer, a privilege is not something "retained."
>
> Not another assertion without other reference!
You apparently have a Webster's dictionary. Look it up.
> In fact I have been
> noticing that you never reference your opinions - you are some special
> metaphysical literat who argues without reference to his self, but is
> always right too. You seem to dimly remember that Privilege means
> private or secret,
"Privilege" does not mean private or secret. It means privilege.
> and that was the original word,
That's not even true, as the etymology is to the Latin words for "laws
pertaining to oneself."
> and surely you must
> realise that some secrets cannot be commanded! There are at least 3
> reasons why this is so; that knowledge of them is unknown [such as
> people's general knowledge of the dark side of the moon] or that the
> person is unable to express the secret, or that their interlocutor is
> unable by lack-a-wit to understand an explanation. In all cases the
> matter remains secret and cannot be compelled.
All of this is irrelevant, as privilege does not mean secret, no matter its
origin.
>
> But the large issue here is that there is a difference in being
> granted something and retaining it. I think the Constitution mentions
> 'inalienable rights' which are not so much things granted as things
> that cannot be removed or taken away.
The Constitution does not mention "'inalienable rights'"; that's the
Declaration of Independence. The political philosophy that underlies the
Constitution is indeed one of rights that accrue to people as a result of
their humanity. ("Retain" is slightly out of place here as that word means
to keep something that you might have otherwise discarded. But human
rights appear at birth and are necessarily kept unto death.) The
Constitution is thus structured to require the state to act in such a way
that preserves those rights. However state actors do not always act
properly, and sometimes they fail to observe Constitutional dictates. So
it is possible to have the cold comfort of still having a right (that
you've always had), yet suffer from the state's failure to protect that
right.
>> >> > Now and again vast amount of such tropes must regained to the
>> >> > langauage by the greater and natural force which is obviously
>> >> > superior to any restricted or partial use, just as is all
>> >> > language superior to what lawyers or other specialists have to
>> >> > say within their own specialty.
>>
>> >> The paragraph above no meaning.
>>
>> > It could do with explication, but there is plenty of meaning in it.
>>
>> Not under the ordinary use of the word "meaning." �What can "Now and
>> again" possibly suggest?
>
>
> It could possibly mean 'occasionally'.
Possibly. But how could we measure that number with respect to a "vast
amount of ... tropes"?
>
>> �How could "vast amount" be measured, even with its missing article?
>
> 'A lot.'
Yes, a synonym for "vast amount." What are the units and what scale are
you using?
>> �"Must regained" isn't English usage. �What force?
>
> The force of usage and custom. This is as true of language as it is in
> the law. The idea is that no matter what you legislate or think of
> things, you cannot command the tide of actual usage without becoming
> fascist and enforcing one and only one understanding, even if a
> minority imposes its view on the majority. But if we resent fascist
> use, then we will not allow a minority to dictate their idea of
> something on what we say or do.
Your florid prose attempts to cover a banality of thought. All this talk
of tropes regained in their vast amounts! Try to drop the metaphorical and
the abstract. I think you're saying that authority is helpless to command
vernacular usage and that we must resist any such authoritarian attempt. I
agree, but you've gone a long way for such a small insight.
And you've overreached. Specialists in their fields do indeed dictate
their terms of art. The dictionaries of specialists probably also change
with the "tide of usage," but it's usage within the specialty. Lay tides
have little effect.
<snipped: nonresponse>
<snip/>
>> I can actually parse the explication, but it props up a strawman. �No
>> one
>> argues that the technical meanings of terms are "superior" to their
>> vernacular. �They're different.
>
> They can have different meanings including opposite ones.
So we're in violent agreement? There are different meanings, but one isn't
superior to another?
>
>> �Of course, they don't attain "'more sense'" (whatever that means);
>
> I'll tell you. There is no more sense in 'technical explanation' by
> virtue of it being borrowed into a technicality.
Can you state anything simply? There is certainly a particular sense in a
word used as a technical term, which word has been borrowed by a specialty.
For instance, "malice" has a particular meaning in the law, not congruent
with the vernacular meaning of "ill feeling." That doesn't mean that
"malice" as a term of legal art has more meaning that its vernacular twin,
just that it has a different meaning.
>> they have a sense restricted by their field of use.
>> > � �Old English is dead.
>>
>> > A sentence requiring 4 words of Old English to proclaim itself. A
>> > self- contradictory form of expression which inherently proves the
>> > opposite of what is ostensibly claimed by the sentence.
>>
>> Nonetheless, no one speaks or writes Old English except possibly in
>> the study of Old English texts.
>
> But my dear fellow! Those 4 words are Old English!
>
> Do you remember Churchill's ...on the beaches peroration? The last 50
> words are all 'old' English, save the very last, 'surrender' which is
> from Old French.
Ah, yes. The old Churchill example, tired when I first heard it decades
ago.
> Neil Armstrong spoke 100% 'old' English as the first words spoken on
> the moon.
>
> These words are simply continuous English use, and while spellings
> vary, the sounds continue unchanged. The particular form of idiotic
> statement Old English is dead has no name! Since those same words
> could have been spoken in 709 and 2009.
Another strawman, as no one doubts that some Old English vocabulary has
descended to us almost unchanged over a millenium or more. But Old English
as a language, i.e., in its entire vocabulary and its grammar, is no longer
in use.
>> >> > Thereby what is natural can be argued against whatever the
>> >> > supreme court says, since it supercedes and transcends unnatural
>>
>> >> Supersedes.
>
> US spelling.
No, it's "supersedes" on both sides of the Atlantic.
>> >> > delimitations, and ipso facto, you cannot adjudicate
>> >> > transcendent factors of the law with the law. Certainly Thoreau
>> >> > would agree this point, even agree it with Erasmus.
>>
>> >> Agree it?
>>
>> > Yes. As in fact Thoreau liked to write himself �:)
>>
>> Sorry, I don't do emoticons. �Perhaps Thoreau himself like to write.
> �So
>> what?
>
> As Thoreau would have put it... that's what the sentence says.
I doubt it, and as HDT isn't around, perhaps you could state what the
sentence "says." I don't know what a factor of the law is, I don't know
what distinguishes the special class of transcendent factors, and I don't
know what it means to adjudicate these. And I doubt you do either.
>> > That doesn't
>> > mean he liked to write to himself, but that people didn't use as
>> > many conjunctions as we do.
>>
>> But they continue to use prepositions idiomatically. �You would be
>> wise to agree them. �(Insert the emoticon of your choice here.)
>
> /But/ they do idiomatic speech? But what?
Never mind. It's not much fun if I have to explain my little jokes.
>> >> What does "adjudicate transcendent factors" mean?
>>
>> > Sort out things which transcend the realm sorted.
>>
>> But "adjudicate" does not mean "sort out."
>
> 'But' again? I could use another word but you have trouble with big
> ones, so...
You have offered "sort out" as an explanation of your use of the word
"adjudicate." Let me suggest that this precludes criticizing my
familiarity with English vocabulary.
Let me note that you often do use another word, without gaining any
explanatory traction. So try again:
1. What are factors and how can I distinguish them from other things like,
say, sectors?
2. What makes factors transcendent, and how can I distinguish those factors
that are transcendent from those that aren't?
3. What is the process by which one adjudicates factors?
>> �Using "transcend" to define
>> "transcendent" tells me nothing. �And I still don't know what
>> "factors" are, except that they're "things."
>>
>> See the problem yet?
>
> Yes. I should use simpler words to you so that you will be less
> confused than by reading big ones, which you always challenge by
> saying, 'not!' or 'but', offering no sense of your own authority for
> word usage, nor why you don't 'get' big words. geddit?
This isn't a matter of my not getting "big" words. This is a matter of
your idiosyncratic abstract usages. If it makes you feel better to pretend
that it is my intellectual shortcomings that inhibit my understanding,
that's fine. If you understand what you're talking about from the Olympian
heights of your mind, then you should be able to explain it to us slower
mortals.
>> > In current usage when people claim a sense to word to their own
>> > discipline or group but which does not accord with greater or
>> > original usage, you can obtain an entirely different meaning:
>>
>> > So that if I say 'you made a few nice points' in your post, I am
>> > not necessarily agreeing with you, but I mean you made some precise
>> > points. We still retain the original sense of 'nice' in the term
>> > 'niceties', which are to do with specifics, not pleasantries. Now,
>> > undoubtably being specific /is/ pleasant, so over time the word
>> > changed its general usage.
>>
>> This is entirely unremarkable -- dare I say that it goes without
>> saying?
> --
>> and seems entirely irrelevant to your complaints about claims of
>> superiority.
>
> You asked me to illustrate a meta-level comment, and I gave the above
> as example. Whether that is 'remarkable' to you I could not tell.
If I asked you to illustrate a "meta-level comment," I withdraw that
request.
> What you say about superiority is inevitable, since you do not
> illustrate or source your own preferences, and must be obliged to not
> understand so very much writing outside your own sphere that you now
> are hung up about superior or inferior abilities.
Nothing I've told you cannot be checked easily in dictionaries, grammars, a
copy of the Constitution, and the like. I've given you my blessing -- not
that you need it -- to consider my understanding nugatory. I am not the
one "hung up" on "superior or inferior abilities." That would be you,
commenting on my command of vocabulary and my reading habits.
I have been trying to get you to explain your views on usages superior and
not superior. Go back and read your paragraph starting with "Now and again
vast amount of such tropes."
>
> Since it is plain that you are unable to discuss anything in general
> terms, nor understand what that is necessary, of course you will also
> speak of my 'claims' and so on from your very liberal ignorance of how
> to conduct a discussion about a topic, rather than of persons.
As irony meters explode everywhere.
I don't know you, so I have nothing to say about you as a person. I
haven't speculated on your intellectual abilities or disdained your reading
habits. As you have done to me. I don't really know what your claims are,
since your writing is opaque, mostly from the overuse of abstract terms and
metaphorical usage. You're right that I don't want to discuss anything in
general terms. I want to discuss some specific things. As far as I can
tell, your specifics are either trivial (Authority cannot dictate
vernacular usage) or silly (Old English isn't "dead" because we still use
some words found in Old English.)
But perhpas the failing is mine, so I've asked for simple, clear
explanations. The only things simple and clear I've got from you are
insults.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
Mike Murray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > � �Old English is dead.
>> > A sentence requiring 4 words of Old English to proclaim itself. A
>> > self- contradictory form of expression which inherently proves the
>> > opposite of what is ostensibly claimed by the sentence.
>> Nonetheless, no one speaks or writes Old English except possibly in the
>> study of Old English texts.
>But my dear fellow! Those 4 words are Old English!
Phil would claim that because the eyes of a corneal transplant see and
the heart of a heart transplant recipient beats, that the donor still
lives.
We could take this metaphorically, but past posts reveal Phil to be
incapable of working with metaphor.
None
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:25:38 -0700 (PDT), ChessFarte
>
We could take this metaphorically, but past posts reveal Phil to be
Oh I dont know about that, he mixes it up from time to time.
ChessFire
> ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote innews:acf3b4ed-14e9-40fd...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> > But, obvious or implicate?
>
> >> Obvious.
>
> > Not evidently obvious, but I have come to note your preference for
> > both uncited authority for your opinions, their rather declarative
> > nature, as if perhaps a conversation revealing any source or reason
> > would be too onerous?
>
> Would it be too onerous for you to look up the meanings?
I think I am asking you to cite your own, if you disagree with
something I say. How long can you whine about things you do not do
yourself?
> Obvious means
> evident; implicate means a necessary result from logical consequence.
Logical? Where is this definition from? Something implicate may be
other than logical.
> Not
> all implications are obvious.
Nor linear, nor 'logical'.
> Fermat's Last Theorem is implicate from the
> axioms of mathematics, but it's hardly obvious.
I think you have forgotten the subject context and have resorted to
Fermat to make some sort of statement about obvious and implicate...
though to make some uncertain point?
> <snip nonresponse/>
? non response to what?
<...>
>
> You've snipped the context, which had something to do with lawyers
> (actually, Lawyers) speaking idiomatically. But I doubt the context would
> make the explanation any clearer.
??
> > I think the matter referenced is legal-Latin, which is a singular
> > topic, therefore 'has'.
>
> I don't know what you think the "matter referenced" is, but the antecedent
> of "have" is (the plural) phrase "the words."
So you would prefer 'the matter have" to "the matter has" ?
> >> - in other words, legal Latin has only rarely any actual...
>
> >> How is this "in other words"?
>
> >> In fact, legal Latin almost always has an operational meaning.
>
> > You mean to say, in the law? Surely, but the issue is not whether that
> > 'operational meaning' has any force in law, but whether the words or
> > sentences are merely tropes used in the law, and are used otherwise
> > elsewhere.
>
> The words aren't "merely" tropes; they have operational meanings. And of
> course, they're often used "otherwise elsewhere." What I can't get you to
> tell me is So what?
You want to be told something? I don't think so. I think you resent
the idea that borrowed words with meanings different than in
literature or general speech are subservient to greater meaning, even
though you say they have 'operational meaning' as if to justify legal
cant because it has force in the law.
Since you have not been able to understand what I wrote, and have
become defensive on the issue, so as to claim there is a reason for
legal cant, I think you abandon the argument.
> >> In other
> >> words -- watch how that works when used properly -- if you're not
> >> sure what
> >> "certiorari" means, a lawyer can explain it to you by describing what
> >> a court will do.
>
> > You press your own point very strongly, and I thank you for it, since
> > in doing so you illustrate mine.
>
> Not with "certiorari," which, as far as I know, has no vernacular usage.
> But what I'm looking for is a clear illustration of your point *from you*
And you do this by asking something about a specific legal term
unreferenced in other use? You see, you become a bit random, then ask
what my point is as if there is some relation to what you write above
and my point.
<...>
> > a] You are arguing with Mario Pei, who is not just any linguist, and
> > b] I trust to the use of Romance languages which have self-reflexive
> > verbs, like French, for their own use of 'se', which is as I and Pei
> > have mentioned.
>
> a] I doubt it, but perhaps you could cite Pei's claim that "pro se" means
> "of itself."
What does it mean to you? You see, you advance your own opinion but do
not reference it, but demand others reference theirs, then ask about
some page reference or something? Bit weak aren't you?
> b] You may place your trust all you want in Romance languages,
with reflexive verbs,
> which
> probably have reflexive verbs,
I am obliged to tell you that they do indeed have them, rather than
'probably' have them. :)))
> but they won't tell you the genitive of
> Latin pronouns.
The languages won't tell me? How can 'a language' tell anything,
except by their usage of Latin derivation [hence Romance... <snort>],
which you seem genuinely puzzled about. You are confused about Latin
origins to English which do not use the same reflexive sense, and
thereby you seem to think the Latin is not self-reflexive, never
having spoken French, eg.
> > I note you are a tad vague on your own sourcing, being better at
> > asserting? It's OK for the hoi-polloi,
>
> You are free to consult a Latin grammar and a Latin dictionary.
A permission or an evasion? I think I have sourced what I say - of
course, this means nothing to you, but you gloss the point that you
source nothing.
> I like
> Cassell's, but you may check another, online if you wish.
?Quare? Check what online if I wish what?
Are you capable of stating a subject and object in your sentences, and/
or naming your nouns? If you like the Marchant and Charles [Revised]
Ed, I have it, though it ain't great. ;)
> By the way, "the hoi-polloi" is redundant, as "hoi" means "the" in Greek.
? Quare?
> > but this is only to say that
> > being a line-judge is sort of like being a Supreme Court judge.
>
> What does this mean? That citing Romance languages "like French" to
> support a claim about Latin grammar is like assuming a line judge (tennis?
> football?) is a member of the Supreme Court? Whose members aren't even
> judges, but justices.
It means that you don't have much of a clue about what you address,
and since you are some sort of judge, think yourself grand as any
judge.
The point of self-reflexive verbs as the Latin 'se' to French, is that
you seem genuinely puzzled that French language has such things - and
so assume that the English translation [which typically despises self-
reflexive verbs] is some form of 'correct' use or sense of the Latin,
all based on your ignorance of the use of the same word in French.
> >> Just as an aside, you've incorrectly used the subjunctive, which is
> >> reserved for conditions contrary to fact.
>
> > No way!?
>
> Way.
All my best jokes go unnoticed ;(
> (My cite is Wayne Campbell.)
Look, Waynes' World means a lot to some people, but, um...
> >> > But I don't like translating pro always as 'for'. Want to split the
> >> > difference with 'in favor of'?
>
> >> There's nothing to split. "In favor of" is one meaning of "for." In
> > any
> >> case, the "pro se" does not mean "of itself."
>
> > Who is going to tell Webster's dictionary, since in fact they offer
> > both. For is for sure OK, but it is a tolerably vague conjunction,
> > suitable for loose connections, whereas to be more specific one would
> > use the more tedious but accurate phrase Webster's offers, no?
>
> Is the the tedious but more accurate phrase "of"?
? Quare?
> If not, I doubt
> Webster's has much value in determining the genitive of a Latin pronoun.
You doubt Webster's now? Or are you merely asserting once more the
awkward way in which English language deals with self-reflexive verb
forms? I assume the latter, and you base your view on the English
means of expression, not what was Latin.
> >> >> The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
>
> >> > Which is phonetically similar
>
> >> Since we're talking semantics, what difference does that make?
>
> > I must assume you mean that we are 'talking' semiotics, since the
> > meaning of the word semantics is 'meaning'.
>
> No, I'm just talking about meaning.
You don't understand. Semantics means 'meaning'. Your initial
statement asks what difference does 'meaning make?'
Whereas semiotics has to do with received impressions, which are
variously meaningful about a subject not present; hence we must use
signals [words] to attempt to communicate /in place of/ the subject
not present.
Semiotically if you say, or show a picture of a cow, then this may be
received in Europe as some bucolic country entity, or food item, but
to an Indian intellectual may see the same image as a symbol of
superstitious religious veneration.
> You may think you're talking
> semiotics, but that just means you're talking nonsense. Need a cite?
> Anything that claims to be semiotics.
?Quare?
You think that there are no varied ways of receiving a signal? How
odd!
> > In other words your
> > sentence asks what difference any meaning makes. Now... if you are
> > talking general semantics it may be possible to use your
> > construction... ?
>
> No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make to the
> meaning of words. And your answer is ...?
You mean what are the differences in sounds?
Because you do not believe in semantics, I assume you want one sound
emitted to mean one and only one thing to the hearer - is that your
point?
> >> >> > Similarly the word privilege
> >> >> > in law means something awarded, but actually it means something
> >> >> > retained.
>
> >> >> The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a
> >> >> grant.
>
> >> > Quite. One is awarded a right or grant. Whereas the original word
> >> > means retained - that it was always yours, not granted.
>
> >> Just out of curiosity, which "original word" is that? No matter the
> >> answer, a privilege is not something "retained."
>
> > Not another assertion without other reference!
>
> You apparently have a Webster's dictionary. Look it up.
I do not apparently have a Websters, I cited you from it, but you ask
me to look 'it' up, as if you think you could find the origin in
Websters, which you cannot.
My own citation of the word was from Halliwell, James Orchard
Halliwell. I also gave his definition and then spoke of the
differences of things retained as private and things granted by others
as secret.
Did you have something other than assertion to offer for your own
point, which is becoming more than a little blunt. Do you actually
have a point?
> > In fact I have been
> > noticing that you never reference your opinions - you are some special
> > metaphysical literat who argues without reference to his self, but is
> > always right too. You seem to dimly remember that Privilege means
> > private or secret,
>
> "Privilege" does not mean private or secret. It means privilege.
And I think you have exhausted your wit, giving the definition of a
word as the word. Meanwhile you deny original use from circa 1350
while displaying just as much wit and reference as your assertion.
In other words, you were bust in the last post and should have cut
your loses.
> > and that was the original word,
>
> That's not even true, as the etymology is to the Latin words for "laws
> pertaining to oneself."
Its introduction into English, and its then meaning is all to the
point. What is the English word originally mean. If you care to cancel
Chaucer and then rare lexicographer Halliwell, then you will need do
better than this, otherwise you are in danger of seeming to protest
too much what you cannot establish even a little thereof.
> > and surely you must
> > realise that some secrets cannot be commanded! There are at least 3
> > reasons why this is so; that knowledge of them is unknown [such as
> > people's general knowledge of the dark side of the moon] or that the
> > person is unable to express the secret, or that their interlocutor is
> > unable by lack-a-wit to understand an explanation. In all cases the
> > matter remains secret and cannot be compelled.
>
> All of this is irrelevant, as privilege does not mean secret, no matter its
> origin.
Um, Heil?
But I don't do that stuff. As above, you have contested serious
linguists and lexicographers without even any knowledge of who they
are, and while you can bamboozle this way in court [?] here you are
high and dry, and unsubstantiated assertion is no defence, nor any
prosecution either.
>
>
> > But the large issue here is that there is a difference in being
> > granted something and retaining it. I think the Constitution mentions
> > 'inalienable rights' which are not so much things granted as things
> > that cannot be removed or taken away.
>
> The Constitution does not mention "'inalienable rights'"; that's the
> Declaration of Independence.
Happy. So you /do/ understand the principle that these rights are not
granted, but in fact inalienable, that is to say, cannot be
ungranted ;)
> The political philosophy that underlies the
> Constitution is indeed one of rights that accrue to people as a result of
> their humanity.
Accrue? That is the wrong word. That doesn't mean inalienable, it
means gained or obtained, which are conditional circumstances.
<yawn>
Phil Innes
> ("Retain" is slightly out of place here as that word means
> to keep something that you might have otherwise discarded. But human
> rights appear at birth and are necessarily kept unto death.) The
> Constitution is thus structured to require the state to act in such a way
> that preserves those rights. However state actors do not always act
> properly, and sometimes they fail to observe Constitutional dictates. So
> it is possible to have the cold comfort of still ...
>
> read more »
None
> On Oct 26, 11:22 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make to the
> meaning of words. And your answer is ...?
You mean what are the differences in sounds?
Because you do not believe in semantics, I assume you want one sound
emitted to mean one and only one thing to the hearer - is that your
point? CFe
Don't be like a simile.
Deadrat
news:1bb98900-c189-4f1d...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 26, 11:22�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote
>> innews:acf3b4ed-14e9-40fd-918a-c02
> 9b22...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > But, obvious or implicate?
>>
>> >> Obvious.
>>
>> > Not evidently obvious, but I have come to note your preference for
>> > both uncited authority for your opinions, their rather declarative
>> > nature, as if perhaps a conversation revealing any source or reason
>> > would be too onerous?
>>
>> Would it be too onerous for you to look up the meanings?
>
> I think I am asking you to cite your own, if you disagree with
> something I say. How long can you whine about things you do not do
> yourself?
<sigh>
Check.Any.Dictionary. How about www.dictionary.com, to make it easy?
</sigh>
>
>> �Obvious means
>> evident; implicate means a necessary result from logical consequence.
>
> Logical? Where is this definition from? Something implicate may be
> other than logical.
Logical as in Boolean.
>
>> Not all implications are obvious.
>
> Nor linear, nor 'logical'.
What do think "linear" means in this context? Nothing useful that I can
think of.
Logical as in implied.
>> �Fermat's Last Theorem is implicate from the
>> axioms of mathematics, but it's hardly obvious.
>
> I think you have forgotten the subject context and have resorted to
> Fermat to make some sort of statement about obvious and implicate...
> though to make some uncertain point?
Well, perhaps if you didn't snip the context, the conversation would be
easier to follow. The point is that A may imply B (and thus B is
implicate from A), but B needn't be an obvious consequence.
<snip/>
>> > I think the matter referenced is legal-Latin, which is a singular
>> > topic, therefore 'has'.
>>
>> I don't know what you think the "matter referenced" is, but the
>> antecedent
>> of "have" is (the plural) phrase "the words."
>
> So you would prefer 'the matter have" to "the matter has" ?
Did you not understand the word "antecedent"? I stated that "the words
... have."
>> >> - in other words, legal Latin has only rarely any actual...
>>
>> >> How is this "in other words"?
>>
>> >> In fact, legal Latin almost always has an operational meaning.
>>
>> > You mean to say, in the law? Surely, but the issue is not whether
>> > that 'operational meaning' has any force in law, but whether the
>> > words or sentences are merely tropes used in the law, and are used
>> > otherwise elsewhere.
>>
>> The words aren't "merely" tropes; they have operational meanings.
>> And of
>> course, they're often used "otherwise elsewhere." �What I can't get
>> you to
>> tell me is So what?
>
> You want to be told something? I don't think so.
Regardless of what you think, I want you to explain what is so remarkable
about words that have a specialized meaning in one context and a
different meaning in another.
> I think you resent
Why would you speculate on what I think? You can't really know, and it's
irrelevant to your argument.
> the idea that borrowed words with meanings different than in
> literature or general speech are subservient to greater meaning,
Your writing if often metaphorical and thus vague. What does it mean for
"borrowed" words to be "subservient" to general speech?
> even
> though you say they have 'operational meaning' as if to justify legal
> cant because it has force in the law.
I'm not "justifying" anything. This is the way the world works. Legal
terms have specialized meanings that sometimes clash with the vernacular.
These meanings don't have the force of law (or in law). But if you want
to understand legal proceedings, you must understand the way these words
are used in their forensic context.
This seems entirely noncontroversial.
>
> Since you have not been able to understand what I wrote, and have
> become defensive on the issue, so as to claim there is a reason for
> legal cant, I think you abandon the argument.
Again, if you think I've misunderstood your argument, then explain
yourself more clearly. Perhaps an example or two would help. You have
no way of knowing whether I'm defensive or not, sowhy bring it up?
I haven't speculated on the reason for "legal cant," as you call it. It
is what it is.
>
>> >> �In other
>> >> words -- watch how that works when used properly -- if you're not
>> >> sure what
>> >> "certiorari" means, a lawyer can explain it to you by describing
>> >> what a court will do.
>>
>> > You press your own point very strongly, and I thank you for it,
>> > since in doing so you illustrate mine.
>>
>> Not with "certiorari," which, as far as I know, has no vernacular
>> usage.
> �
>> But what I'm looking for is a clear illustration of your point *from
>> you*
>
> And you do this by asking something about a specific legal term
> unreferenced in other use? You see, you become a bit random, then ask
> what my point is as if there is some relation to what you write above
> and my point.
If your correspondent seems confused to you, your best bet is to check
the transmitter first.
Words have different meanings in different contexts. This seems entirely
noncontroversial.
>> > a] You are arguing with Mario Pei, who is not just any linguist,
>> > and b] I trust to the use of Romance languages which have
>> > self-reflexive verbs, like French, for their own use of 'se', which
>> > is as I and Pei have mentioned.
>>
>> a] I doubt it, but perhaps you could cite Pei's claim that "pro se"
>> means "of itself."
>
> What does it mean to you?
What difference does it make what it means to me? Independently of me,
it means what it means in Latin, : for himself. If you don't believe
me, then check your Cassell's.
> You see, you advance your own opinion but do not reference it,
This isn't an opinion. It's what's written in Latin grammars and Latin
dictionaries.
> but demand others reference theirs, then ask about
> some page reference or something?
If you want to paraphrase Pei, then it's fair for me to ask for a quote.
I've checked the meaning of "pro se" in a Latin dictionary. Do likewise
if you don't believe me
> Bit weak aren't you?
If you have to declare yourself the winner, then you probably aren't.
>
>> b] You may place your trust all you want in Romance languages,
>
> with reflexive verbs,
>
>> which probably have reflexive verbs,
>
> I am obliged to tell you that they do indeed have them, rather than
> 'probably' have them. :)))
Ooh! A quadruple emoticon! If only I used such things, you'd have been
able to figure out that I was being ironic. Self-reflexive is redundant.
>
>> but they won't tell you the genitive of Latin pronouns.
>
> The languages won't tell me? How can 'a language' tell anything,
Your metaphorical talents have failed you? OK. The study of Romance
languages will not tell you the genitive of Latin pronouns. For that bit
of information, you'll have to study Latin.
> except by their usage of Latin derivation [hence Romance... <snort>],
> which you seem genuinely puzzled about. You are confused about Latin
> origins to English which do not use the same reflexive sense, and
> thereby you seem to think the Latin is not self-reflexive, never
> having spoken French, eg.
I'm not confused about Latin's contribution to English. And I know there
are reflexive (not self-reflexive) pronouns in Latin, knowledge
independent of my limited knowledge of French.
>
>> > I note you are a tad vague on your own sourcing, being better at
>> > asserting? It's OK for the hoi-polloi,
>>
>> You are free to consult a Latin grammar and a Latin dictionary.
>
> A permission or an evasion? I think I have sourced what I say - of
> course, this means nothing to you, but you gloss the point that you
> source nothing.
>
>> �I like
>> Cassell's, but you may check another, online if you wish.
>
> ?Quare? Check what online if I wish what?
>
> Are you capable of stating a subject and object in your sentences,
> and/ or naming your nouns? If you like the Marchant and Charles
> [Revised] Ed, I have it, though it ain't great. ;)
Here: http://www.math.osu.edu/~econrad/lang/lpnrefl.html
Happy now?
<snip/>
> It means that you don't have much of a clue about what you address,
> and since you are some sort of judge, think yourself grand as any
> judge.
I'm not judging anything. I'm telling you facts.
> The point of self-reflexive verbs as the Latin 'se' to French, is that
> you seem genuinely puzzled that French language has such things -
I don't speak French, and I'm neither puzzled nor surprised that French
has reflexive pronouns. Whatever the French do can hardly matter to
Latin usage.
> and
> so assume that the English translation [which typically despises self-
> reflexive verbs]
> is some form of 'correct' use or sense of the Latin,
> all based on your ignorance of the use of the same word in French.
No matter how little French I know, my Latin translation is still
correct. Some languages change the verb form to indicate reflexivity.
Both Latin and English rely on reflexive pronouns, no matter what the
French do.
<snip/>
>> If not, I doubt
>> Webster's has much value in determining the genitive of a Latin
>> pronoun.
>
> You doubt Webster's now?
Not for definitions in English.
> Or are you merely asserting once more the
> awkward way in which English language deals with self-reflexive verb
> forms? I assume the latter, and you base your view on the English
> means of expression, not what was Latin.
Again, it is not my "view" that "pro se" means "for himself" in Latin.
It really has nothing to do with me.
>> >> >> The genitive (in English with "of") would be sui.
>>
>> >> > Which is phonetically similar
>>
>> >> Since we're talking semantics, what difference does that make?
>>
>> > I must assume you mean that we are 'talking' semiotics, since the
>> > meaning of the word semantics is 'meaning'.
>>
>> No, I'm just talking about meaning.
>
> You don't understand. Semantics means 'meaning'. Your initial
> statement asks what difference does 'meaning make?'
No, my initial statement asks what difference does sound make to meaning.
See a few lines up, where you say "Which is phonetically similar"?
"Cat" is "phonetically similar" to "cart," but that hardly matters to the
meanings of the words.
> Whereas semiotics has to do with received impressions, which are
> variously meaningful about a subject not present; hence we must use
> signals [words] to attempt to communicate /in place of/ the subject
> not present.
>
> Semiotically if you say, or show a picture of a cow, then this may be
> received in Europe as some bucolic country entity, or food item, but
> to an Indian intellectual may see the same image as a symbol of
> superstitious religious veneration.
I rest my case about semiotics.
Thanks.
>> �You may think you're talking
>> semiotics, but that just means you're talking nonsense. �Need a cite?
> �
>> Anything that claims to be semiotics.
>
> ?Quare?
> You think that there are no varied ways of receiving a signal? How
> odd!
I think the signal to noise ratio of semiotics is vanishingly small.
>> > In other words your
>> > sentence asks what difference any meaning makes. Now... if you are
>> > talking general semantics it may be possible to use your
>> > construction... ?
>>
>> No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make to
>> the meaning of words. �And your answer is ...?
>
> You mean what are the differences in sounds?
No, what does the similarity of the sounds make to their meanings.
> Because you do not believe in semantics, I assume you want one sound
> emitted to mean one and only one thing to the hearer - is that your
> point?
You commented that two things were phonetically similar. So what?
>> >> >> > Similarly the word privilege
>> >> >> > in law means something awarded, but actually it means
>> >> >> > something retained.
>>
>> >> >> The word in law or in the vernacular may designate a right or a
>> >> >> grant.
>>
>> >> > Quite. One is awarded a right or grant. Whereas the original
>> >> > word means retained - that it was always yours, not granted.
>>
>> >> Just out of curiosity, which "original word" is that? �No matter
>> >> the answer, a privilege is not something "retained."
>>
>> > Not another assertion without other reference!
>>
>> You apparently have a Webster's dictionary. �Look it up.
>
> I do not apparently have a Websters, I cited you from it, but you ask
> me to look 'it' up, as if you think you could find the origin in
> Websters, which you cannot.
You seem to have confused origin with meaning. "Peculiar" has its root
in the Latin word for cattle, but you would be wrong to think that its
English usage has anything to do with livestock.
>
> My own citation of the word was from Halliwell, James Orchard
> Halliwell. I also gave his definition and then spoke of the
> differences of things retained as private and things granted by others
> as secret.
Work and pages therefrom, please.
> Did you have something other than assertion to offer for your own
> point, which is becoming more than a little blunt. Do you actually
> have a point?
>
>> > In fact I have been
>> > noticing that you never reference your opinions - you are some
>> > special metaphysical literat who argues without reference to his
>> > self, but is always right too. You seem to dimly remember that
>> > Privilege means private or secret,
>>
>> "Privilege" does not mean private or secret. �It means privilege.
>
> And I think you have exhausted your wit, giving the definition of a
> word as the word.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to pretend that you don't
understand the point, ....
> Meanwhile you deny original use from circa 1350
> while displaying just as much wit and reference as your assertion.
Original use and derivation will not necessarily tell you what the word
means now.
>
> In other words, you were bust in the last post and should have cut
> your loses.
Check my point about self-declaring victory.
Ooh! a "self"-reflexive verb!
>
>> > and that was the original word,
>>
>> That's not even true, as the etymology is to the Latin words for
>> "laws pertaining to oneself."
>
> Its introduction into English, and its then meaning is all to the
> point. What is the English word originally mean. If you care to cancel
> Chaucer and then rare lexicographer Halliwell, then you will need do
> better than this, otherwise you are in danger of seeming to protest
> too much what you cannot establish even a little thereof.
These are fascinating topics. But they won't tell you what the word
means today. If you're granted a privilege (or the law recognizes a
privilege), privacy and secrecy just don't enter into it.
For example, witness testimony is privileged (i.e., you can't be sued for
what you say on the stand), but there are few things less secret than
testimony in open court.
>
>> > and surely you must
>> > realise that some secrets cannot be commanded! There are at least 3
>> > reasons why this is so; that knowledge of them is unknown [such as
>> > people's general knowledge of the dark side of the moon] or that
>> > the person is unable to express the secret, or that their
>> > interlocutor is unable by lack-a-wit to understand an explanation.
>> > In all cases the matter remains secret and cannot be compelled.
>>
>> All of this is irrelevant, as privilege does not mean secret, no
>> matter its origin.
>
>
> Um, Heil?
> But I don't do that stuff. As above, you have contested serious
> linguists and lexicographers without even any knowledge of who they
> are, and while you can bamboozle this way in court [?] here you are
> high and dry, and unsubstantiated assertion is no defence, nor any
> prosecution either.
Serious linguists and lexicographers may well speak learnedly of the
etymology of English words. None of them will make the current usage of
privilege take any meaning of secrecy. You have confused word origins
with word definitions. Something that I doubt James Orchard ever did.
>> > But the large issue here is that there is a difference in being
>> > granted something and retaining it. I think the Constitution
>> > mentions 'inalienable rights' which are not so much things granted
>> > as things that cannot be removed or taken away.
>>
>> The Constitution does not mention "'inalienable rights'"; that's the
>> Declaration of Independence.
>
> Happy. So you /do/ understand the principle that these rights are not
> granted, but in fact inalienable, that is to say, cannot be
> ungranted ;)
>
>> �The political philosophy that underlies the
>> Constitution is indeed one of rights that accrue to people as a
>> result of their humanity.
>
> Accrue? That is the wrong word. That doesn't mean inalienable, it
> means gained or obtained, which are conditional circumstances.
One meaning of accrue is "happen naturally." The word is apt.
>
> <yawn>
>
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> �("Retain" is slightly out of place here as that word means
>> to keep something that you might have otherwise discarded. �But human
>> rights appear at birth and are necessarily kept unto death.) �The
>> Constitution is thus structured to require the state to act in such a
>> way that preserves those rights. �However state actors do not always
>> act properly, and sometimes they fail to observe Constitutional
>> dictates. �
> So
>> it is possible to have the cold comfort of still ...
>>
>> read more �
>
I've thought about your claim that the sentence "Old English is dead" is
Old English. It always pays to check the claims of an ignoramus. It's
possible that
Ald Englisc is dead
is acceptable Old English, but it's also possible that this is more
accurate:
Gedead ald Englisc
My Old English is rusty. In either case, "Old English is dead" isn't Old
English.
Deadrat
news:7c39be30-6a86-47f7...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 28, 6:52�pm, ChessFarte <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 11:22�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make to
>> the meaning of words. And your answer is ...?
>
> You mean what are the differences in sounds?
>
> Because you do not believe in semantics,
No.
> I assume you want one sound
> emitted to mean one and only one thing to the hearer -
Of course not.
> is that your point? CFe
>
> Don't be like a simile.
>
Alas, context long gone.
I'm not sufficiently interested to go back and check the thread, but I
think the conversation involved "pro se" and "sui." In noting that the
latter (and not the former) means "of himself," I got a comment that the
two are phonetically similar.
So what?
jkh001
That's hardly surprising, since "sui" is the genitive case and "se"
the accusative or ablative of the third person reflexive pronoun.
Don't they teach Latin in school any more? And, of course, you're
right: so what?
Deadrat
news:9a61e698-cc13-461a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 28, 6:17�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:7c39be30-6a86-47f7-9a5b-75e7dcea
> 7f...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Oct 28, 6:52�pm, ChessFarte <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 26, 11:22�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make
>> >> to the meaning of words. �And your answer is ...?
>>
>> > You mean what are the differences in sounds?
>>
>> > Because you do not believe in semantics,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > I assume you want one sound
>> > emitted to mean one and only one thing to the hearer -
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> > is that your point? CFe
>>
>> > Don't be like a simile.
>>
>> Alas, context long gone.
>>
>> I'm not sufficiently interested to go back and check the thread, but
>> I think the conversation involved "pro se" and "sui." �In noting that
>> the latter (and not the former) means "of himself," I got a comment
>> that the two are phonetically similar.
>>
>> So what?
>
>
> That's hardly surprising, since "sui" is the genitive case and "se"
> the accusative or ablative of the third person reflexive pronoun.
It surprises the hell out of ChessFire.
> Don't they teach Latin in school any more?
No, and not for a long time.
> And, of course, you're right:
Of course.
> so what?
I wasn't asking someone who took high-school Latin.
And, in fact, I wasn't asking about the meaning of "pro se." I was
asking ChessFire why he posted that "se" and "sui" are phonetically
similar. They both start with a sibilant. So what?
Perhaps he'll tell me. Probably, after insisting that "pro se" means "of
himself."
jkh001
> jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote innews:9a61e698-cc13-461a...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 6:17 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >> None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:7c39be30-6a86-47f7-9a5b-75e7dcea
>
> >> > On Oct 28, 6:52 pm, ChessFarte <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Oct 26, 11:22 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> No, my sentence asks what difference does phonetic similarity make
> >> >> to the meaning of words. And your answer is ...?
>
> >> > You mean what are the differences in sounds?
>
> >> > Because you do not believe in semantics,
>
> >> No.
>
> >> > I assume you want one sound
> >> > emitted to mean one and only one thing to the hearer -
>
> >> Of course not.
>
> >> > is that your point? CFe
>
> >> > Don't be like a simile.
>
> >> Alas, context long gone.
>
> >> I'm not sufficiently interested to go back and check the thread, but
> >> I think the conversation involved "pro se" and "sui." In noting that
> >> the latter (and not the former) means "of himself," I got a comment
> >> that the two are phonetically similar.
>
> >> So what?
>
> > That's hardly surprising, since "sui" is the genitive case and "se"
> > the accusative or ablative of the third person reflexive pronoun.
>
> It surprises the hell out of ChessFire.
>
> > Don't they teach Latin in school any more?
>
> No, and not for a long time.
That was, of course, a rhetorical question indicating my contempt for
the products of our contemporary educational system. But perhaps they
don't teach you what rhetorical questions are any more, either.
> > And, of course, you're right:
>
> Of course.
First time for everything.
> > so what?
>
> I wasn't asking someone who took high-school Latin.
>
> And, in fact, I wasn't asking about the meaning of "pro se." I was
> asking ChessFire why he posted that "se" and "sui" are phonetically
> similar. They both start with a sibilant. So what?
Since you don't (I presume) know what dialect of English he speaks
(I'm fairly sure it's not RP), how can you argue with his claim?
> Perhaps he'll tell me. Probably, after insisting that "pro se" means "of
> himself."
Don't hold your breath.
madams
>
> ChessFire <onec...@comcast.net> wrote in
.
> >> >> Supersedes.
> >
> > US spelling.
>
> No, it's "supersedes" on both sides of the Atlantic.
-----------
It's also "supercedes".
___________
Aw DiddumsDec 3, 2006 at 13:24 o\clockThis Cantankerous Scot Rebels
Again
by: Diddums Category: Technology, Software and Editing Keywords:
spellings, English, dictionaryMood: Snorting
Listening to: Nothing
This blog is in the process of moving to WordPress. This post can be
found there.
I have been looking on-line at the spellings supersede and supercede.
There are a lot of claims that supercede is incorrect, whereas the
Oxford English Dictionary (unless this information is out of date)
claims that supercede is valid and disputed rather than incorrect.
'Disputed' it could well be, because so many spell it that way - and not
without reason.
A comment on this site says that the Scots used superceid.
I do have a preference for supercede - but that's probably because I'm a
cantankerous Scot who was brought up to spell it that way.
Just as I dialled up to check a few sites on the subject, thinking
'dictionaries, dictionaries' to myself, my eye was caught by my daily
horoscope. It said:
The dictionary may define an obstacle as 'a person or thing that
obstructs progress,' but today any obstacles you face will have quite
the opposite effect. When someone tells you 'no' today, all you'll hear
is a challenge to change this person's mind. You are up to the task, and
you're eager to make all obstacles disappear.
Good. It's supercede. Diddums has spoken.19 Comments | PermalinkComments
for this entry:quoteBunnyman wrote at Dec 3, 2006 at 18:51 o\clock:
My two volume "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" lists both forms
but words the distinction as follows:
supersede Also (earlier) -cede. L15.
The L15 refers to use of supercede beginning around the late fifteenth
century. It doesn't say anything about supersede being wrong.
Perhaps it is just a Scottish quirk but I've always used the -cede
spelling. Supersede sounds more like some kind of humungous, prize
winning vegetable.
Quite a strange place that Everything2.com, I've added it to my list of
Very Odd Encyclopaedias. It doesn't yet have an entry for "Diddums"
though it does suggest that "Bunnyman" might be an unsavoury character,
quite mad and having some anti-social habits. Seems there's even a
bridge named after me.
Well at least it has some good "vegan pizza" recipes. :-)quoteButtercup2
wrote at Dec 3, 2006 at 22:59 o\clock:
I agree.. Supercede it is! I'm glad others spend time on things like
this also~quoteMrs. Chili wrote at Dec 3, 2006 at 23:36 o\clock:
Oh, I'm FOREVER doing stuff like this!
I imagine, given the flexibility of English (and the often mind-boggling
lack of logical development it follows), that any previously used
spellings could be considered "correct." I'm a New Englander, born and
raised, yet I spell things like 'cheque' and 'behaviour.' I have no
excuse for it, but I don't make excuses for it, either. If I'm getting
my point across, it doesn't really matter whether I use archaic or
"British" spelling.quoteBunnyman wrote at Dec 3, 2006 at 23:47 o\clock:
Oh dear! I've just spotted a silly boo-boo in my previous comment,
above. It should read:
"The L15 refers to use of supercede beginning around the late fifteenth
century. It doesn't say anything about *supercede* being wrong."
Oops, looks like I'm buying myself that new spelling DVD for
Christmas.quotePete wrote at Dec 4, 2006 at 09:29 o\clock:
for what it's worth I spell it supercedequoteDiddums wrote at Dec 4,
2006 at 14:16 o\clock:
Yay, that's six of us for supercede with a 'c' - including Mum. I
thought I might meet with some resistance, but so far there are no
obstacles. :-).
PS Bunnyman, I didn't think to explore the rest of everything2.com -
I'll have to have a look, especially if it has recipes!quoteKatieK wrote
at Dec 4, 2006 at 19:48 o\clock:
West Coast American here. I always spell it -cede...I do have 1/8
Scottish ancestry (their last name was Aird).quoteDiddums wrote at Dec
5, 2006 at 02:16 o\clock:
Even better - the count has risen to 7!quoteFeral wrote at Dec 16, 2007
at 19:48 o\clock:
It just came up on a spelling question on a family quiz show. 3 of us in
the room all spelt it with a 'c', the answer on the quiz was with an 's'
I intend to stick with Supercede!quoteDiddums wrote at Dec 16, 2007 at
23:46 o\clock:
Sound decision. :-). It's interesting how it wasn't just one that spelt
it 'c', but three of you. That's 10 in this blog post so far.quotenot
quite past it dad wrote at Dec 21, 2007 at 22:16 o\clock:
Just watched "Are you smarter than a 10 year old" and watched in shock
as all the kids spelt supercede as supersede and apparently they're
right. My learned mrs and me spell it the proper way - supercede and
would probably have lamped Noel Edmonds if he said we were wrong.
Funnily enough the guy took the cash but thought it was supercede.
Funnily enough, he was Scottish as wellquoteDiddums wrote at Dec 22,
2007 at 01:23 o\clock:
I'm sorry I missed that show - or then again, maybe not, as I would
probably have got vexed! I read a lot of books growing up, and they
can't all have been Scottish. I just never had the impression that
'supersede' was correct while 'supercede' wasn't.
There, the comment box spell-checker has just put a red line under
'supercede'.
(Coshes it with giant humungous vegetable).
It doesn't recognize 'coshes' or 'humungous' either.quoteAndrea wrote at
Sep 10, 2008 at 19:40 o\clock:
I ended up on this site as I use the word supercede a lot in my notes at
work and I'm getting very annoyed with Word telling me it's a
'non-standard' word and trying to correct my spelling (I added it to the
Word dictionary now). For your info I'm not Scottish but am from
Newcastle - so maybe it's a Northern thing. I must ask my Southern
boyfriend how he spells it...quoteDiddums wrote at Oct 9, 2008 at 19:22
o\clock:
Normally if something has the wrong spelling, it's wrong, but I think in
this case we're onto something. :-)quoteAlistair wrote at Dec 3, 2008 at
15:41 o\clock:
If you have particular trouble with certain spellings, it seems you
might not be as stupid as you thought.
Researchers claim that a number of words are misspelt simply because
we're too clever.
For example, the English word most commonly
Many of us wrongly come up with ' supercede' because of our knowledge of
other words including intercede or precede. The word itself comes from
the Latin super-sedere, meaning to desist.
The same temptation to refer to our experience of other words causes us
to come a cropper with consensus, liquefy and sacrilegious.
They are among scores of examples found by researchers for Collins
dictionaries, who ran thousands of documents through a software program
designed to pick up spelling mistakes.
They included published books and articles, as well as internet blogs,
to ensure that they covered a wide range of writing styles and media.
Supersede was by far the most commonly misspelt word, although it was
wrong only one time out of ten.
Consensus is frequently spelt incorrectly as concensus because the
writer wrongly believes that it relates to the word census which comes
from the Latin censere, to assess. Consensus, however, derives from the
Latin consentire, to agree.
When it comes to liquefy, many
The same applies to sacrilegious which is often misspelt as sacreligious
(as with religious) and inoculate because many know the word innocuous
contains a double 'n'.
Ian Brookes, managing editor of dictionaries at Collins, said: 'The real
spelling problems occur when people have learnt the rules or have a bit
of knowledge, but make mistakes in how they apply this.'
Another common reason for misspelling is where words are spelt
differently from their pronunciation or when they come from a foreign
language.
Collins is holding a public vote next month to find out which word
schoolchildren think has the stupidest spelling.
The Spelling Society has campaigned for the past 100 years for a
simplified and phonetic form of spelling. It has backed a campaign
launched by lecturer Ken Smith, from Buckinghamshire New University, to
compile a list of variant spellings which would include common
misspellings including thier, arguement, ignor and speach.
Its chairman, Jack Bovill, said: 'Clearly changes are taking place
moving towards a more logical form of spelling. The readiness of people
to accept what Ken Smith calls variant spellings will not create a world
catastrophe.'
A survey for the Spelling Society in May found half of adults unable to
spell words such as embarrassed, liaison or millennium.
English is a living language, therefore changes to spelling of the more
difficult words are to be expected.
New words are added each year, we have the Americans to be thanked for
their additions, Watergate, mugging, stalking, friendly fire, drive by
shooting to name but a few!quoteRundi wrote at Mar 20, 2009 at 15:51
o\clock:
Definitely supercede in my books and I'm a soft Southerner (though not
sure what that has to do with anything). One concede's, cede's way
(yield / give way, etc.) so why stick an "s" where it ought not to
be.quoteTIM wrote at Apr 1, 2009 at 10:56 o\clock:
I was just asked in a multiple choice quiz what was the correct spelling
and two of the four options were supercede and supersede. I have always
used supercede and was shocked that this was not (in the quizmaster's
view) correct and they plumped for the "s" version. I have always used
the "c" version and will continue, the "s" sounds American.quoteGraeme
wrote at Apr 15, 2009 at 17:21 o\clock:
I was writing a report today and had noted in it that a previous note
was "superceded" by my current report when Spellcheck arrested me,
saying the correct spelling is "supersede". I have used my spelling for
years to write across engineering drawings to cancel a previous version
when a revision is issued. Being educated in Ireland I was exposed to
this spelling only, and there have been many great literary figures in
the English language from that little island They also use a "c" rather
than a "s" to spell "licence" and "defence" as do most people here in
Canada. So I'll stick with a "c" rather than a "s".quoteMalcolm wrote at
May 18, 2009 at 15:57 o\clock:
I personally prefer supercede (place above), as when we supercede one
spare part with another when we find the original part's mean time
between failures is too low. It relates to the other related terms
precede (place before, related to precession), procede (go to the next
place (in a series) related to procession), succeed ((reach the) first
place (win) related to succession), intercede (place between).
Comment this entryYour name: (Guest)
Type the two words:Type what you hear:Incorrect. Try again.
Attention: guestbook entries on this weblog have to be approved by the
weblog\s owner.
Navigation
Home
About this weblog
Guestbook
Back to blogigo
Add this weblog to my favourites >>
Login
Username
Password
Forgot password?
Register
Why register?
Latest entries
Dec 14, 2007 at 18:30 o\clock:
Emigrating At Long Last
Dec 10, 2007 at 15:25 o\clock:
A Hint of Humanity in the Darkness
Dec 8, 2007 at 18:00 o\clock:
Tempted by Stephen Fry
Oct 9, 2007 at 22:52 o\clock:
The Light and Shade of Computerspace
Sep 22, 2007 at 02:18 o\clock:
The Missing Notepad
Categories
Blogging (2)
Computer Graphics and Photos (2)
Hearing Loss (5)
Junk Shop Finds (2)
Life and Family (1)
Music (1)
My Cats (1)
Political and Social Issues (0)
Quizzes and Memes (2)
Technology, Software and Editing (2)
Archive
December 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
January 2007
December 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
Links
Abbie the Cat has a Posse
An Udge and a Wink
Andrea's Buzzing About
Aw Diddums: Blogspot
Beefy or Peachy
BlogFriday
Blogging Against Disablism 2006
Blogs by Women
Deep Jive Interests
Diary of a Goldfish
Itisi
Kate Blogs about Writing & Web Design
KAZ
Kizgikate
Life in the Country
Little Stitches
Poetry, Writings, Artwork and Stories from Neil Furby
Posted Notes
Reflections
Secretly Turkish
Space Cat Rocket Ship
Status Anxiety
Stephen Fry
Tea with Lara
The Perorations of Lady Bracknell
The Quacks of Life
The Supposed Golden Path
Timmargh.net
Timorous Beastie
What's that you said?
Weblog status
Visitors: 45703
Online since: Jun 11, 2005
Owner: Diddums
Important: the weblog owner is solely responsible for all data and
content on this site. blogigo (Imprint) only provides the free hosting
service and may display advertisement banners on this site.
Deadrat
news:016ecefa-9e6e-4f01...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 28, 10:39�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote
>> innews:9a61e698-cc13-461a-bb25-5185ffdb8b0e
Ya know, maybe the kids are onto something, and I really should start
using emoticons. Hate to do it, though.
>> > And, of course, you're right:
>>
>> Of course.
>
> First time for everything.
Maybe if you'd written, "First time for everything?" you could call it a
rhetorical question. Whaddaya think?
>> > so what?
>>
>> I wasn't asking someone who took high-school Latin.
>>
>> And, in fact, I wasn't asking about the meaning of "pro se." �I was
>> asking ChessFire why he posted that "se" and "sui" are phonetically
>> similar. �They both start with a sibilant. �So what?
>
> Since you don't (I presume) know what dialect of English he speaks
> (I'm fairly sure it's not RP), how can you argue with his claim?
His posts use the prepositions "for" and "of" idiomatically. In any
case, identifying the genitive case should be enough in any dialect.
Or was that another of your famous rhetorical questions?
>
>
>> Perhaps he'll tell me. �Probably, after insisting that "pro se" means
>> "of himself."
>
> Don't hold your breath.
Which you mean metaphorically?
ChessFire
> > I think I am asking you to cite your own, if you disagree with
> > something I say. How long can you whine about things you do not do
> > yourself?
>
> <sigh>
No answer
> Check.Any.Dictionary. How aboutwww.dictionary.com, to make it easy?
> </sigh>
Variable possibilities via a dictionary?
> >> Obvious means
> >> evident; implicate means a necessary result from logical consequence.
>
> > Logical? Where is this definition from? Something implicate may be
> > other than logical.
>
> Logical as in Boolean.
But Logic is not restricted to Boolean structure... though if your
answer is to abandon the point as I posed you, you did so.
> >> Not all implications are obvious.
>
> > Nor linear, nor 'logical'.
>
> What do think "linear" means in this context? Nothing useful that I can
> think of.
What you can think of is to do with your own wit. Your remark is not
answerable thereby, nor is it a question. But it is a good 'out' via
an [absurd] preference.
> Logical as in implied.
?
But I already challenged you to this; implicit or implicate? You are
now changing your tune, or you forgot your tune?
> >> Fermat's Last Theorem is implicate from the
> >> axioms of mathematics, but it's hardly obvious.
>
> > I think you have forgotten the subject context and have resorted to
> > Fermat to make some sort of statement about obvious and implicate...
> > though to make some uncertain point?
>
> Well, perhaps if you didn't snip the context, the conversation would be
> easier to follow. The point is that A may imply B (and thus B is
> implicate from A), but B needn't be an obvious consequence.
laugh - certainly, but what context or content pertains to this rather
obvious abstraction?
> <snip/>
>
> >> > I think the matter referenced is legal-Latin, which is a singular
> >> > topic, therefore 'has'.
>
> >> I don't know what you think the "matter referenced" is, but the
> >> antecedent
> >> of "have" is (the plural) phrase "the words."
>
> > So you would prefer 'the matter have" to "the matter has" ?
>
> Did you not understand the word "antecedent"? I stated that "the words
> ... have."
But you criticised what I wrote, which is 'the matter has'. It's OK,
people have small patience on usenet and will not typically spot your
deceit.
<...>
> Regardless of what you think, I want you to explain what is so remarkable
> about words that have a specialized meaning in one context and a
> different meaning in another.
You do want me to do that, but I have to say what is 'remarkable'
about it? But I already did remark on it. Perhaps you mean something
else by 'remarkable' such as 'sensational' or even 'poignant', but
were unable to express yourself?
> > I think you resent
>
> Why would you speculate on what I think? You can't really know, and it's
> irrelevant to your argument.
I can see what you do, which is to kite issues, without intending to
discuss your own miserable understanding of them. As to what is
relevent to 'my argument', which to date has featured plain
representation of several world class linguists, you twist the issue
as if it is I who 'argue' something, whereas I cite as many comments
as I can to their origin, and you cite none.
ROFL
> > the idea that borrowed words with meanings different than in
> > literature or general speech are subservient to greater meaning,
>
> Your writing if often metaphorical and thus vague. What does it mean for
> "borrowed" words to be "subservient" to general speech?
You are unfamiliar with terms 'borrowed words' and 'general speech'? I
use no metaphor in the phrase to which you reply, and I think perhaps
you are unfamiliar with the linguistic terms or borrowed or loan
words? Tell me, did you ever hear of them before?
As to your comprehension of my sentence, I do not make general speech
different than literature in this instance, I instead suggest that
their /use/ is other than their original sense.
Say you understand even this much before asking for a 3 credit credit
course, which naturally needs 'to be proved to you', as net morons
usually demand.
> > even
> > though you say they have 'operational meaning' as if to justify legal
> > cant because it has force in the law.
>
> I'm not "justifying" anything. This is the way the world works.
Té!
In other words you do justify legal cant because it is pragmatic.
<yawn>
> Legal
> terms have specialized meanings that sometimes clash with the vernacular.
> These meanings don't have the force of law (or in law). But if you want
> to understand legal proceedings, you must understand the way these words
> are used in their forensic context.
>
> This seems entirely noncontroversial.
Quite so, and much to my point; that legal appropriations have sense
within law, without necessary sense in logic, custom, or in precedent
in language.
> > Since you have not been able to understand what I wrote, and have
> > become defensive on the issue, so as to claim there is a reason for
> > legal cant, I think you abandon the argument.
>
> Again, if you think I've misunderstood your argument, then explain
> yourself more clearly.
I am no arguing anything. I am using citations from English usage to
example an issue. Where is any argument in this?
> Perhaps an example or two would help. You have
> no way of knowing whether I'm defensive or not, sowhy bring it up?
Only your own representation declares whether you are 'defensive'
whatever that means. You are fighting something without reference to
content or source, no? Is that 'defensive' in in your own terms?
> I haven't speculated on the reason for "legal cant," as you call it. It
> is what it is.
<...>
> > And you do this by asking something about a specific legal term
> > unreferenced in other use? You see, you become a bit random, then ask
> > what my point is as if there is some relation to what you write above
> > and my point.
>
> If your correspondent seems confused to you, your best bet is to check
> the transmitter first.
Why is that? My correspondent has not chosen to engage in conversation
based on object records or citations, and after all these messages
between us, assume he has none, otherwise he would have used them.
Objectively, my correspondent was bust several posts ago when he
asserted without even any attempt to explain himself that such was
such. Therefore he is plainly bullshitting way beyond his depth, and
should chip out of the poker game.
> Words have different meanings in different contexts. This seems entirely
> noncontroversial.
>
> >> > a] You are arguing with Mario Pei, who is not just any linguist,
> >> > and b] I trust to the use of Romance languages which have
> >> > self-reflexive verbs, like French, for their own use of 'se', which
> >> > is as I and Pei have mentioned.
>
> >> a] I doubt it, but perhaps you could cite Pei's claim that "pro se"
> >> means "of itself."
>
> > What does it mean to you?
>
> What difference does it make what it means to me?
Yes.
> Independently of me,
> it means what it means in Latin, : for himself. If you don't believe
> me, then check your Cassell's.
The same version as your own? Pei says what he thinks and you want me
to 'cite' him? What is that to you? Why don't you read the literature
yourself, and then tell us why you disagree with major linguists?
Otherwise you pose me a losing game, that I not only cite my sources,
but you will them disagree with them, as if you, patzer, knew shit.
You see the dilemma?
> > You see, you advance your own opinion but do not reference it,
>
> This isn't an opinion. It's what's written in Latin grammars and Latin
> dictionaries.
>
> > but demand others reference theirs, then ask about
> > some page reference or something?
>
> If you want to paraphrase Pei, then it's fair for me to ask for a quote.
> I've checked the meaning of "pro se" in a Latin dictionary. Do likewise
> if you don't believe me
I never have any need to believe anything. It is rather your
understanding of what you read which seems to be in question, and
since you <snipped> the reference top se in French, then you merely
play a popularity game here about what the average person might think.
You are welcome to win such an argument, since even sense doesn't
reorient that opinion.
> > Bit weak aren't you?
>
> If you have to declare yourself the winner, then you probably aren't.
Winner?
> >> b] You may place your trust all you want in Romance languages,
>
> > with reflexive verbs,
>
> >> which probably have reflexive verbs,
>
> > I am obliged to tell you that they do indeed have them, rather than
> > 'probably' have them. :)))
>
> Ooh! A quadruple emoticon!
AH! A massive evasion of the topic :))
I did notice, you know, so will others who know nothing about romance
languages.
> If only I used such things, you'd have been
> able to figure out that I was being ironic. Self-reflexive is redundant.
O! I see, you were being ironic. ;(
Perhaps your entire postings are ironic? A sort of duplicitous posture
of saying one thing in order to indicate it is not so by a form of
self lampooning idiocy unable to explain itself - naturally, since
what it says it sufficiently abstract, vague and/or inferred from
authorities...
If such, I am the victim of your joke, not seeing it early enough, and
you win, hands down.
Congratulations.
Phil Innes
Deadrat
news:10876b77-b497-44bd...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> > I think I am asking you to cite your own, if you disagree with
>> > something I say. How long can you whine about things you do not do
>> > yourself?
>>
>> <sigh>
>
> No answer
So you didn't bother to consult the dictionary? OK.
>
>> Check.Any.Dictionary. �How aboutwww.dictionary.com, to make it easy?
>> </sigh>
>
> Variable possibilities via a dictionary?
Meaning=nothing.
>> >> �Obvious means
>> >> evident; implicate means a necessary result from logical
>> >> consequence.
>>
>> > Logical? Where is this definition from? Something implicate may be
>> > other than logical.
>>
>> Logical as in Boolean.
>
> But Logic is not restricted to Boolean structure... though if your
> answer is to abandon the point as I posed you, you did so.
Meaning=nothing.
>
>> >> Not all implications are obvious.
>>
>> > Nor linear, nor 'logical'.
>>
>> What do think "linear" means in this context? �Nothing useful that I
>> can think of.
>
> What you can think of is to do with your own wit. Your remark is not
> answerable thereby, nor is it a question. But it is a good 'out' via
> an [absurd] preference.
Meaning=nothing.
Evasion noted.
>> Logical as in implied.
>
> ?
> But I already challenged you to this; implicit or implicate? You are
> now changing your tune, or you forgot your tune?
The "challenge" was *obvious* or implicate. Implicit and implicate are
synonymous here.
>> >> �Fermat's Last Theorem is implicate from the
>> >> axioms of mathematics, but it's hardly obvious.
>>
>> > I think you have forgotten the subject context and have resorted to
>> > Fermat to make some sort of statement about obvious and
>> > implicate... though to make some uncertain point?
>>
>> Well, perhaps if you didn't snip the context, the conversation would
>> be easier to follow. �The point is that A may imply B (and thus B is
>> implicate from A), but B needn't be an obvious consequence.
>
> laugh - certainly, but what context or content pertains to this rather
> obvious abstraction?
So you didn't bother to follow the conversation? OK.
>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> >> > I think the matter referenced is legal-Latin, which is a
>> >> > singular topic, therefore 'has'.
>>
>> >> I don't know what you think the "matter referenced" is, but the
>> >> antecedent
>> >> of "have" is (the plural) phrase "the words."
>>
>> > So you would prefer 'the matter have" to "the matter has" ?
>>
>> Did you not understand the word "antecedent"? �I stated that "the
>> words ... have."
>
>
> But you criticised what I wrote, which is 'the matter has'. It's OK,
> people have small patience on usenet and will not typically spot your
> deceit.
Yours is easy to spot though:
<quote>
ME: The words "rarely," "actual," "sense," and "language" all have
ME: readily accessible meanings in English. �The phrase "rarely any
ME: actual sense as language" is semantically empty.
YOU: Maybe, better to have written 'have' for 'has'
</quote>
As I noted, no "maybe" about it.
>> Regardless of what you think, I want you to explain what is so
>> remarkable about words that have a specialized meaning in one context
>> and a different meaning in another.
>
> You do want me to do that, but I have to say what is 'remarkable'
> about it? But I already did remark on it. Perhaps you mean something
> else by 'remarkable' such as 'sensational' or even 'poignant', but
> were unable to express yourself?
Meaning=I'm so cute.
Evasion noted.
>> > I think you resent
>>
>> Why would you speculate on what I think? �You can't really know, and
>> it's irrelevant to your argument.
>
> I can see what you do, which is to kite issues, without intending to
> discuss your own miserable understanding of them. As to what is
> relevent to 'my argument', which to date has featured plain
> representation of several world class linguists, you twist the issue
> as if it is I who 'argue' something, whereas I cite as many comments
> as I can to their origin, and you cite none.
Meaning=I'm so smart.
And you've *invoked* *one* linguist. Not one cite.
Evasion noted.
>
> ROFL
Meaning=I'm nervous.
Noted.
>
>> > the idea that borrowed words with meanings different than in
>> > literature or general speech are subservient to greater meaning,
>>
>> Your writing if often metaphorical and thus vague. �What does it mean
>> for
>> "borrowed" words to be "subservient" to general speech?
>
> You are unfamiliar with terms 'borrowed words' and 'general speech'? I
> use no metaphor in the phrase to which you reply, and I think perhaps
> you are unfamiliar with the linguistic terms or borrowed or loan
> words? Tell me, did you ever hear of them before?
The metaphorical ussage is "subservient."
Evasion noted.
>
> As to your comprehension of my sentence, I do not make general speech
> different than literature in this instance, I instead suggest that
> their /use/ is other than their original sense.
Meaning=nugatory.
>
> Say you understand even this much before asking for a 3 credit credit
> course, which naturally needs 'to be proved to you', as net morons
> usually demand.
Meaning=I'm so smart.
>
>
>> > even
>> > though you say they have 'operational meaning' as if to justify
>> > legal cant because it has force in the law.
>>
>> I'm not "justifying" anything. �This is the way the world works.
>
> T�!
>
> In other words you do justify legal cant because it is pragmatic.
There's nothing to "justify." Legal terms have legal meanings because
they have well-known forensic uses.
>
> <yawn>
Meaning=I've got nothing.
Noted.
>> �Legal
>> terms have specialized meanings that sometimes clash with the
>> vernacular.
> �
>> These meanings don't have the force of law (or in law). �But if you
>> want
>> to understand legal proceedings, you must understand the way these
>> words are used in their forensic context.
>>
>> This seems entirely noncontroversial.
>
> Quite so, and much to my point; that legal appropriations have sense
> within law, without necessary sense in logic, custom, or in precedent
> in language.
That's it? This completely trivial observation engendered all the
obfuscation and puffery?
Wow.
>> > Since you have not been able to understand what I wrote, and have
>> > become defensive on the issue, so as to claim there is a reason for
>> > legal cant, I think you abandon the argument.
>>
>> Again, if you think I've misunderstood your argument, then explain
>> yourself more clearly.
>
> I am no arguing anything. I am using citations from English usage to
> example an issue. Where is any argument in this?
Evasion noted.
>> �Perhaps an example or two would help. �You have
>> no way of knowing whether I'm defensive or not, sowhy bring it up?
>
> Only your own representation declares whether you are 'defensive'
> whatever that means. You are fighting something without reference to
> content or source, no? Is that 'defensive' in in your own terms?
Meaning=nothing.
>> I haven't speculated on the reason for "legal cant," as you call it.
>> �It is what it is.
>
> <...>
>
>
>> > And you do this by asking something about a specific legal term
>> > unreferenced in other use? You see, you become a bit random, then
>> > ask what my point is as if there is some relation to what you write
>> > above and my point.
>>
>> If your correspondent seems confused to you, your best bet is to
>> check the transmitter first.
>
> Why is that? My correspondent has not chosen to engage in conversation
> based on object records or citations, and after all these messages
> between us, assume he has none, otherwise he would have used them.
> Objectively, my correspondent was bust several posts ago when he
> asserted without even any attempt to explain himself that such was
> such. Therefore he is plainly bullshitting way beyond his depth, and
> should chip out of the poker game.
Meaning=I win. I really do. I win, I win, I win.
>> Words have different meanings in different contexts. �This seems
>> entirely noncontroversial.
>>
>> >> > a] You are arguing with Mario Pei, who is not just any linguist,
>> >> > and b] I trust to the use of Romance languages which have
>> >> > self-reflexive verbs, like French, for their own use of 'se',
>> >> > which is as I and Pei have mentioned.
>>
>> >> a] I doubt it, but perhaps you could cite Pei's claim that "pro
>> >> se" means "of itself."
>>
>> > What does it mean to you?
>>
>> What difference does it make what it means to me?
>
> Yes.
I'll rephrase: How could what I thought possibly make any difference to
the actual meaning of the words? "Yes" is not an answer.
>>�Independently of me,
>> it means what it means in Latin, : �for himself. �If you don't
>> believe me, then check your Cassell's.
>
> The same version as your own? Pei says what he thinks and you want me
> to 'cite' him?
Yes, that's the way it works. You've got a claim backed by Pei. Let's
see the backing.
> What is that to you? Why don't you read the literature
> yourself, and then tell us why you disagree with major linguists?
You made the claim, but you don't want to back it up? OK
Evasion noted.
> Otherwise you pose me a losing game, that I not only cite my sources,
> but you will them disagree with them, as if you, patzer, knew shit.
> You see the dilemma?
You've claimed you've got linguistic authority on your side. That's a
fairly powerful claim. If it's so, then I assume you've got the cite.
My disagreement would carry little weight, since I'm not a linguist. Yet
you demur.
Evasion noted.
>
>> > You see, you advance your own opinion but do not reference it,
>>
>> This isn't an opinion. �It's what's written in Latin grammars and
>> Latin dictionaries.
>>
>> > but demand others reference theirs, then ask about
>> > some page reference or something?
>>
>> If you want to paraphrase Pei, then it's fair for me to ask for a
>> quote.
> �
>> I've checked the meaning of "pro se" in a Latin dictionary. �Do
>> likewise if you don't believe me
>
> I never have any need to believe anything. It is rather your
> understanding of what you read which seems to be in question, and
> since you <snipped> the reference top se in French, then you merely
> play a popularity game here about what the average person might think.
I've done no such thing. The meaning of Latin pronouns and their
declension isn't determined by "what the average person might think."
Untruth noted.
> You are welcome to win such an argument, since even sense doesn't
> reorient that opinion.
Meaning=You win.
Surrender noted.
>> > Bit weak aren't you?
>>
>> If you have to declare yourself the winner, then you probably aren't.
>
> Winner?
Stronger, whatever.
>
>> >> b] You may place your trust all you want in Romance languages,
>>
>> > with reflexive verbs,
>>
>> >> which probably have reflexive verbs,
>>
>> > I am obliged to tell you that they do indeed have them, rather than
>> > 'probably' have them. �:)))
>>
>> Ooh! �A quadruple emoticon!
>
> AH! A massive evasion of the topic :))
>
> I did notice, you know, so will others who know nothing about romance
> languages.
As I suspect that others will note that someone who claims familiarity
with linguistics thinks that the usages of Romance languages dictate
similar usages in Latin.
>> �If only I used such things, you'd have been
>> able to figure out that I was being ironic. �Self-reflexive is
>> redundant.
>
>
> O! I see, you were being ironic. ;(
>
Meaning=?
Emoticon noted.
> Perhaps your entire postings are ironic? A sort of duplicitous posture
> of saying one thing in order to indicate it is not so by a form of
> self lampooning idiocy unable to explain itself - naturally, since
> what it says it sufficiently abstract, vague and/or inferred from
> authorities...
Meaning=I'm so smart.
>
> If such, I am the victim of your joke, not seeing it early enough, and
> you win, hands down.
Meaning=You win.
> Congratulations.
Thank you. [insert favorite emoticon here]
> Phil Innes