Good point. Because I'll never have another chance to mention it, this is what Aristotle scholars call "pros hen equivocity." Use it at your next party.
Right, which is, one presumes, the primary sense of the word. But then, there's this:
[Middle English partie, part, side, group, from Old French, from feminine past participle of partir, to divide, from Latin partre, from pars, part-, part. See part.]
So the primary sense isn't "to group," but "to divide." 100 words or less, Wolfson, on the difference between "grouping" and "dividing."
I wouldn't make that presumption. In fact, with the exception of restaurant reservations and computer or console RPGs, using "party" to refer to a group of people is, I suspect, rather uncommon.
You mean "100 words or fewer", I think. Also, your argument is specious.
Division involves taking a set and parsing it according to some criterion. Grouping involves taking a collection and assembling it into sets according to some criterion. I refuse to be held responsible for the foregoing, since I wrote it without thinking.
I'll grant it should have been "or fewer," although the "or less" construction is much more widely used.
And by "primary sense," I didn't mean "most common," which should have been obvious to someone considering graduate school in philosophy. (And it should have been particularly obvious in the context of Aristotle. Oy vey, b-dub.)
And you're right to disclaim responsibility, considering that you've just shifted the discussion from "group" and "divide" to "assemble" and "parse."
I just wanted to use "parse" since it was in the etymology of "party". It's also far from obvious that the discussion was taking place "in the context of Aristotle", given that you introduced him explicitly as an aside, and I was just volunteering a sense of "party". Gevalt, oggedeleh. Ich kann Glas essen; es tut mir nicht weh.
Don't worry, though, I'm at work on a distinction that will appeal immediately to intuitive perception, so we won't have to be concerned about producing a definition that just uses other words.
Oh, I liked the boots, I just wasn't surprised that they raised eyebrows at work. I assume we're in agreement that panty-blogging would raise more than eyebrows in Gentleville.
At Unfogged, however, we'll take it in stride, and give you great comments.
for this and also for this
And this. Par-TAY!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:06 AM
Good point. Because I'll never have another chance to mention it, this is what Aristotle scholars call "pros hen equivocity." Use it at your next party.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:10 AM
And also for just a group of people in general.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:11 AM
Right, which is, one presumes, the primary sense of the word. But then, there's this:
So the primary sense isn't "to group," but "to divide." 100 words or less, Wolfson, on the difference between "grouping" and "dividing."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:15 AM
I wouldn't make that presumption. In fact, with the exception of restaurant reservations and computer or console RPGs, using "party" to refer to a group of people is, I suspect, rather uncommon.
You mean "100 words or fewer", I think. Also, your argument is specious.
Division involves taking a set and parsing it according to some criterion. Grouping involves taking a collection and assembling it into sets according to some criterion. I refuse to be held responsible for the foregoing, since I wrote it without thinking.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:35 AM
I'll grant it should have been "or fewer," although the "or less" construction is much more widely used.
And by "primary sense," I didn't mean "most common," which should have been obvious to someone considering graduate school in philosophy. (And it should have been particularly obvious in the context of Aristotle. Oy vey, b-dub.)
And you're right to disclaim responsibility, considering that you've just shifted the discussion from "group" and "divide" to "assemble" and "parse."
Have you considered law school?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:40 AM
I just wanted to use "parse" since it was in the etymology of "party". It's also far from obvious that the discussion was taking place "in the context of Aristotle", given that you introduced him explicitly as an aside, and I was just volunteering a sense of "party". Gevalt, oggedeleh. Ich kann Glas essen; es tut mir nicht weh.
Don't worry, though, I'm at work on a distinction that will appeal immediately to intuitive perception, so we won't have to be concerned about producing a definition that just uses other words.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 10:52 AM
Did you just say that it doesn't hurt you to eat glass?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:00 AM
Yes.
Apparently I am an abusive user.
Haven't you seen The I Can Eat Glass Project?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:03 AM
Ha! That's new to me. Cool!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:07 AM
Let's face it ... we're all just jealous of the kermit panties that showed up at that fantastic bachelor party.
Dear me. I'm not ready to move on to panty blogging just yet.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:22 AM
I'm ready for you to do so.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:24 AM
Yup, ready here too.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:25 AM
I'll second that.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:32 AM
I was going to leave a commen tin this thread, but I thought better of it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:50 AM
"comment in." Leaving now.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 11:51 AM
Ogged ... be careful what you ask for. You couldn't even handle my black boots, remember?
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 12:00 PM
Oh, I liked the boots, I just wasn't surprised that they raised eyebrows at work. I assume we're in agreement that panty-blogging would raise more than eyebrows in Gentleville.
At Unfogged, however, we'll take it in stride, and give you great comments.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 12:11 PM
In the picture, Kermit looks like he's gotten over his anxiety and mild depression. Way to go, Kerm.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 3:02 PM
But it seems strange that we use the same term,"party," for this and also for this.
Didn't Wittgenstein have something to say about the lack of any sort of all-encompassing definition of a party? :-)
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 6:36 PM
party: a group of people gathered together with the same general intent.
take that, wittgenstein.
So the primary sense isn't "to group," but "to divide."
If from a heterogenous whole one divides off a more homogenous group, one has a party.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-14-04 8:07 PM