Alex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WirelessGuru1 writes: "usually exceptions only
> prove the rules..."
>
> Sorry, WG, but that is simply not so.
>
> Exceptions don't prove rules, they test them.
>
> Alex (in pedant mode)
>
Doug, also in pedant mode.
That's what he said, although I doubt that it is what he meant. People often think that 'prove' means test, but that isn't right either
[
www.worldwidewords.org]
"The problem with that attempted explanation is that those putting it forward have picked on the wrong word to challenge. It’s not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn’t follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as “the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted”."
[
alt-usage-english.org]
"Cicero's defense of L. Cornelius Balbo (56 B.C.) is the earliest known citation of this logic and is sometimes cited as the origin of the phrase. Balbo was accused of having been illegally granted Roman citizenship. The prosecutor pointed out that treaties with some non-Roman peoples prohibited granting them citizenship and suggested this should be inferred in Balbo's case. Cicero replied "If the exception makes such an action unlawful, where there is no exception the action must necessarily be lawful." (Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi <non sit exceptum, ibi> necesse est licere.)"
And for more detail, see [
alt-usage-english.org]
Doug Weller
Director The Hall of Ma'at
Doug's Skeptical Archaeology site::
[
www.ramtops.co.uk]