English Language guide for dummies

[Langthorne]

This statement

1. Exception that proves the rule

reminded me there are a few little pointers regarding how English works that some posters might find useful. I intend to post a few here over time.

In this widely misused statement, the main mistake people make is to understand 'prove' in the sense of 'demonstrating truth', rather than the (intended) sense of 'test'. Logically, an exception cannot demonstrate the truth of a rule - an exception does the opposite.

 

[Langthorne]

There. Their. They're.

Sound the same, spelt differently, and mean different things.

There are many people over there. They're (as in 'they are') booing their team.

 

[Langthorne]

....instead of allowing the players to reach there own personnel potential.

Should be 'their own personal'

 

[Langthorne]

....which is why most bodybuilders/powerlifters approach their training in a bulking then cutting faze (they don't need to be fit though).

phase

 

[Langthorne]

A little guide for using the apostrophe:

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm

 

[Schadenfreude]

I figure if people keep changing the rules for 's then it's not REALLY a rule.

 

[en_force_er]

phase

A little guide for using the apostrophe:
http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm

Shame on me for misspelling phase but let's remember this IS a forum, not a peer reviewed piece of writing. People will make spelling and grammar mistakes, usually through lack of effort.

As long as the meaning isn't lost these mistakes are A-OK in my opinion.

 

[Scarfman]

This statement



reminded me there are a few little pointers regarding how English works that some posters might find useful. I intend to post a few here over time.

In this widely misused statement, the main mistake people make is to understand 'prove' in the sense of 'demonstrating truth', rather than the (intended) sense of 'test'. Logically, an exception cannot demonstrate the truth of a rule - an exception does the opposite.

Well, that's a bit pedantic. The expression has power (and memorability) because it seems to contradict itself. It is saying that if something is an exception, then ipso facto, there must be a rule.

I'd also say that your use of prove is incorrect. Prove does mean demonstrating truth, both generally and in that statement. An exception doesn't test the rule at all. It proves it in the manner I suggested.

 

[boyo]

A lot of this is covered in the "There, their, they're" thread.

The misuse of English on these forums (fora?) is atrocious.

You don't have to go/didn't have to have gone to an Oxbridge-type school to spell/use grammar/punctuate properly. I think that to say otherwise is a cop-out.

If you rely on signage to know how to spell/use grammar/punctuate then you are behind the eight-ball. Sub-editors rarely allow misspelling/incorrect use of grammar/incorrect use of punctuation to occur.

Commenting on these things doesn't make me, or anyone else, a pedant.

 

[Sully]

I'm A terrible speller and my grammar isn't much better that's why I use a spell checker.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You don't have to go/didn't have to have gone to an Oxbridge-type school to spell/use grammar/punctuate properly. I think that to say otherwise is a cop-out.

I don't think that you mean "didn't have to have gone".
That phrase means that at one time one needn't have gone.
I think what you meant was "Don't have to have gone".
I'm sure none of this matters most of the time.

 

[suckerforred]

I am shocking at english, a terrible speller, equally awful at grammer, but still seems to get my point accross.

Please accept my apology for my poor typing also...

 

[Langthorne]

Well, that's a bit pedantic. The expression has power (and memorability) because it seems to contradict itself. It is saying that if something is an exception, then ipso facto, there must be a rule.

I'd also say that your use of prove is incorrect. Prove does mean demonstrating truth, both generally and in that statement. An exception doesn't test the rule at all. It proves it in the manner I suggested.

Prove can mean 'demonstrating truth' or 'test', or quite a few other things. Based on the etymology of the word (which your use of Latin tells me you would be familiar with) I have suggested 'test'.

It is not the case that finding an exception (or exceptions) strengthens the rule. This is the illogical way it is often used.

Surely you are not saying that every time the Wallabies lose, the rule that 'Robbie Deans is a great coach' is reinforced?

 

[Scarfman]

No mate, but you're taking the saying too literally. It's not illogical, it's provoking and memorable.

Me: Robbie Deans can't coach at national level.
You: But what the Wallabies in Hong Kong?
Me: Ah, that's the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Langthorne]

Maybe I'm just taking it too seriously. Maybe every time I see the phrase used I should assume it is a joke.

I guess these phrases do change their meaning over time. To 'beg the question' is now often used to mean 'raise the question', rather than refering to a logical fallacy.