Nah, probably won't work (thinking of doing a post enumerating the in-jokes, but so many of the in-jokes are just references to comments obscured by time...).
So true. Humor is like politics - if you are explaining you are losing.
Speaking of latin, I know we have all heard "Semper ubi, sub ubi," which uses "ubi" incorrectly in both cases, but did anyone else pick up "Irrumpe te" during their high school latin classes?
Interesting post, but, in the spirit of fairness, I think what is proven is that the common usage is the correct one. At least, whenever I have made use of this statement, I mean to apply it to a general rule, not an absolute one. It would be, as you say, nonsensical to apply it to an absolute rule. But, is that really the typical usage?
Nah, probably won't work (thinking of doing a post enumerating the in-jokes, but so many of the in-jokes are just references to comments obscured by time...).
I'm envisioning a "Pierre Menard, Author of the Unfogged Comments section" where we recreate each of the in-jokes, exactly as written, only everybody uses someone else's handle.* I'd like to call dibs on Labs because I have such frequent cause to write "fuck to oboe," but I'm sure someone else could make a stronger case for why they get to be Labs.
I always thought that the common usage meant that because there is an exception, it must be an exception to something, and that something is the rule. Can you have an exception to something that is not a rule?
My comment was in response to yours. Yours referred to "high school latin", asking, "did anyone pick up such-and-such"? I say, no, but I picked up this-and-that. Obvious inference: it's Latin, you fool! "lateras ecfututas", which occurs in Catullus 6, means something like "shagged-out flanks".
It is assumed that the first statement which I made is arrived at via rational induction, whereas your first statement is made without any empirical evidence, so, no, they are not equivalent.
The typical usage is someone brushing aside exceptions unthinkingly. I said the common use is nonsensical because I misunderstood you to be endorsing it. Let's be friends.
Michael, I just meant that if you explicitly state a rule, then when I see an exception, it's not because I necessarily have the background you state as your rule, and find the exception (to your stated rule) exceptional (to my experience). It could be because I think your rule is wrong, and want to point it out to you. That's all.
The typical usage is someone brushing aside exceptions unthinkingly.
I guess this is the nut. But, being a friendly, charitable guy, I do think the phrase is often used in a manner which is basically correct. I guess, being a hermit, I have no good idea about which usage, basically correct or nonsensical, is more common.
Oh yeah, mike d got it. That's about the only thing I remember from HS Latin. That and the number of parts into which all Gaul is divided. And always wearing etc.
as part of a trick to make Satan magically appear in a tortilla, Penn & Teller recommend in one of their books that you chant a latin phrase during the trick, to make it look more evil.
the one they recommend is "asso porco diabolus gaudet" or "the devil likes pork roast" (or something), the most useful latin phrase i know.
Tangentially, but on a similar theme to Ogged's original post:
BEGGING THE QUESTION ["petitio principii"] DOES NOT MEAN 'RAISING THE QUESTION'. It refers to a sort of logical fallacy in which the evidence given for a proposition is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Forget this at your peril, for verily, I will hunt you down and unleash my wrath upon your errant flesh and deliver you unto the night-black baying hell-hounds of Annwn for snacks.
as part of a trick to make Satan magically appear in a tortilla
Given the idiotic amounts of money those things are getting on eBay, I peruse each and every potato chip, tortilla and toasted cheese sandwich that passes through my kitchen. No luck yet.
But I do have a picture of Jesus that manifiested itself on a window at Cedars Sinai hospital.
As a defense of the conventional usage I think it's useful to have a phase that implies, "okay, you may have cleverly found an exception to the rule I proposed but the fact that you had to work so hard to do (or the fact that you've named the one obvious exception) suggests that the rule is generally valid."
If, for example, I say, "small market teams just don't make the world series" and you reply that, actually, in 1863 when the league was devistated by the civil war a team from podunkville lost in a tight 7 game series I think I am perfectly justified (though incorrect) in calling that the exception that proves the rule.
I myself might bid $5000 on a potato chip, but I wouldn't pay.
People do pay; some casino has been swooping these things up. I imagine seeing Holy Velveeta on display makes its patrons feel lucky.
BTW: When you bid on something on eBay [or other auction site], you are entering into a contract to purchase. As in meatspace, this is a real obligation. And Ghod will punish you if you toy with sales of sacred objects. You have been warned. [But, for a small fee, we can provide you with a Magic Poncho that will protect your soul from passing demons and IRS employees...]
is this like expresso unius exclusio alterius?
if so, that's cool.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:33 AM
I think that's the idea, yes.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:34 AM
Roses are red, violets are blue
Weiner
Meaner
Now you know.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:37 AM
That's a fantastic ditty, Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:39 AM
yes, but it does not compare to this one.
although, really 'koran,' pronounced correctly, rhymes with say 'milan,' not 'pan.' but i'm forgiving.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:44 AM
with, say,
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:44 AM
4 was a joke.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:46 AM
i can't keep up with you kids.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:49 AM
Hmm, this gives me an idea...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:51 AM
unfogged joke explanation super-database?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:52 AM
Nah, probably won't work (thinking of doing a post enumerating the in-jokes, but so many of the in-jokes are just references to comments obscured by time...).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:52 AM
plus, there's no better way to kill a joke than to explain it, no?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 11:57 AM
silvana,
So true. Humor is like politics - if you are explaining you are losing.
Speaking of latin, I know we have all heard "Semper ubi, sub ubi," which uses "ubi" incorrectly in both cases, but did anyone else pick up "Irrumpe te" during their high school latin classes?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:03 PM
"Semper ubi, sub ubi" was used to great hilarious effect at exbeforelast's wedding, when it was discovered that she had forgotten to wear underwear.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:05 PM
I don't remember the details, sorry.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:05 PM
Tripp,
No, but I picked up "lateras ecfututas".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:07 PM
ben,
Ooooh. Now I have to dust off my old dictionary. Thanks!
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:15 PM
Let us say that on Highway 101 in central California you see a sign that says
(I think there's another sign at about 7 miles later saying the same thing "next 8 miles".)
What may you reasonably infer from this?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:18 PM
You're near a prison?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:19 PM
Interesting post, but, in the spirit of fairness, I think what is proven is that the common usage is the correct one. At least, whenever I have made use of this statement, I mean to apply it to a general rule, not an absolute one. It would be, as you say, nonsensical to apply it to an absolute rule. But, is that really the typical usage?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:20 PM
Nah, probably won't work (thinking of doing a post enumerating the in-jokes, but so many of the in-jokes are just references to comments obscured by time...).
I'm envisioning a "Pierre Menard, Author of the Unfogged Comments section" where we recreate each of the in-jokes, exactly as written, only everybody uses someone else's handle.* I'd like to call dibs on Labs because I have such frequent cause to write "fuck to oboe," but I'm sure someone else could make a stronger case for why they get to be Labs.
*(huh huh)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:21 PM
Reasonable, and true.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:23 PM
"fuck to oboe" is a SCMT coinage.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:24 PM
And 19 is correct.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:24 PM
Cross-posted with ogged.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:25 PM
But Michael, it's nonsensical in the common usage.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:25 PM
"fuck to oboe" is a SCMT coinage.
Not in Pierre Menard, Author of the Unfogged Comments.
See? Genius! Is this really Chopper? Who can tell? We're through the looking glass, people.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:27 PM
I always thought that the common usage meant that because there is an exception, it must be an exception to something, and that something is the rule. Can you have an exception to something that is not a rule?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:29 PM
Why, if it used in reference to a general rule, which is the way I use it? Like this:
"Squirrels are (generally) gray."
"Hey, look, a white squirrel."
"That you noticed such an exceptions shows that squirrels are, in fact, generally gray."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:29 PM
Just to be clear, I know my example isn't quite logical, but somehow it makes sense empirically. I'm sure there's a better way to formulate it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:32 PM
Ben,
"lateras ecfututas"
Okay, you got me. I'm thinking it is Spanish, but my cow-orker from Ecuador never heard of "lateras" and I'm afraid to ask him "ecfututas."
Do you have any hints?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:32 PM
That dialogue could also have been written:
"Squirrels are (generally) polka-dotted."
"Hey, look, a grey squirrel."
See, if you tell me the rule, then I'm likely to notice an exception, especially if I'm a fractious jerk.
And of course the follow-up is just wrong:
"That you noticed such exceptions (viz, grey squirrels) shows that squirrels are, in fact, generally polka-dotted."
It might show that squirrels are, in fact, generally not white if I find a white squirrel exceptional enough to note.
Anyway, the use you're talking about is closer to ogged's than it is to the "common use".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:33 PM
Tripp,
My comment was in response to yours. Yours referred to "high school latin", asking, "did anyone pick up such-and-such"? I say, no, but I picked up this-and-that. Obvious inference: it's Latin, you fool! "lateras ecfututas", which occurs in Catullus 6, means something like "shagged-out flanks".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:34 PM
you know, why am I justifying? I agree with the interpretation which Ogged quotes. Ben, I don't think I understand your complaint.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:35 PM
ok, cross-post.
That dialogue could also have been written:
"Squirrels are (generally) polka-dotted."
"Hey, look, a grey squirrel."
It is assumed that the first statement which I made is arrived at via rational induction, whereas your first statement is made without any empirical evidence, so, no, they are not equivalent.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:37 PM
The typical usage is someone brushing aside exceptions unthinkingly. I said the common use is nonsensical because I misunderstood you to be endorsing it. Let's be friends.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:37 PM
"See? Genius!"
Holy Quixote!
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:39 PM
Michael, I just meant that if you explicitly state a rule, then when I see an exception, it's not because I necessarily have the background you state as your rule, and find the exception (to your stated rule) exceptional (to my experience). It could be because I think your rule is wrong, and want to point it out to you. That's all.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:39 PM
Anyway, the use you're talking about is closer to ogged's than it is to the "common use".
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usage in Ogged's quote struck me as fairly common. I just phrased it differently.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:39 PM
Let's be friends.
I'm a friendly guy. Our spats are the exception which proves the rule.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:42 PM
The typical usage is someone brushing aside exceptions unthinkingly.
I guess this is the nut. But, being a friendly, charitable guy, I do think the phrase is often used in a manner which is basically correct. I guess, being a hermit, I have no good idea about which usage, basically correct or nonsensical, is more common.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:47 PM
ben,
Obvious inference: it's Latin, you fool!
Well, yeah, but the Latin is "latera ecfututa," and knowing that you never make a mistake, I dug to the second level.
I will never make the mistake of thinking you infallible again.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:53 PM
Fuck!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:54 PM
Now, now, anyone who reads Catullus 6 in High School has obviously got something on the ball.
Me, I never got past Publius and Secunda going to the goddamn market.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 12:58 PM
in via ferri laboravi, tempus sic conterere
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:08 PM
Okay, slolernr, my rusty HS Latin gets something like "If you work in the iron road your time will grind away."
How about you, ben. ben?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:37 PM
Illegitimus non carborundum ?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:44 PM
ferrovia is italian for railroad, so i imagine it's the same in latin... "i've been working on the railroad/all the live-long day"?
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:46 PM
I'm doing this from memory, Tripp, so it may have corrupted over time, but maybe this will help:
aliquis est in culinam, verre esse hoc scio;
aliquis est ibi cum Dinam....
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:48 PM
Oh yeah, mike d got it. That's about the only thing I remember from HS Latin. That and the number of parts into which all Gaul is divided. And always wearing etc.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:49 PM
cum Dina, macron over the "a".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:50 PM
Technically, it was the "just to pass the time away" line. Hence the "grinding" Tripp found.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:52 PM
Technically, it was the "just to pass the time away" line. Hence the "grinding" Tripp found.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:52 PM
Technically, it was the "just to pass the time away" line. Hence the "grinding" Tripp found.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:52 PM
Oh damn, how did that happen?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:52 PM
Wow! slolernr is Max Headroom!
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:53 PM
as part of a trick to make Satan magically appear in a tortilla, Penn & Teller recommend in one of their books that you chant a latin phrase during the trick, to make it look more evil.
the one they recommend is "asso porco diabolus gaudet" or "the devil likes pork roast" (or something), the most useful latin phrase i know.
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:54 PM
47: "Illegitimi," I think. There's more than one. Possibly more than one born every minute.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 1:59 PM
Then, from the MCMLXs, we have:
Salve, nox, me'amica;
Redi'ut rursum te loquar.
Somnio visio me turbavit.
Et tamen anima non quiescit.
Quod haec visio qui somnio vidit
Manet iam
Silentio sonante.
Tangentially, but on a similar theme to Ogged's original post:
BEGGING THE QUESTION ["petitio principii"] DOES NOT MEAN 'RAISING THE QUESTION'. It refers to a sort of logical fallacy in which the evidence given for a proposition is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.
Forget this at your peril, for verily, I will hunt you down and unleash my wrath upon your errant flesh and deliver you unto the night-black baying hell-hounds of Annwn for snacks.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 2:03 PM
Re petit. princip., see Holbo.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 2:06 PM
as part of a trick to make Satan magically appear in a tortilla
Given the idiotic amounts of money those things are getting on eBay, I peruse each and every potato chip, tortilla and toasted cheese sandwich that passes through my kitchen. No luck yet.
But I do have a picture of Jesus that manifiested itself on a window at Cedars Sinai hospital.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 2:12 PM
DE, that's a terrible translation.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 2:13 PM
Can someone point me to more information on ancient Roman, or medieval European, railroads?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 3:57 PM
Given the idiotic amounts of money those things are getting on eBay
But is anyone paying? I myself might bid $5000 on a potato chip, but I wouldn't pay.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 5:31 PM
As a defense of the conventional usage I think it's useful to have a phase that implies, "okay, you may have cleverly found an exception to the rule I proposed but the fact that you had to work so hard to do (or the fact that you've named the one obvious exception) suggests that the rule is generally valid."
If, for example, I say, "small market teams just don't make the world series" and you reply that, actually, in 1863 when the league was devistated by the civil war a team from podunkville lost in a tight 7 game series I think I am perfectly justified (though incorrect) in calling that the exception that proves the rule.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 5:39 PM
small market teams just don't make the world series
Don't tell the St. Louis Cardinals that.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-27-05 6:18 PM
DE, that's a terrible translation.
Think of it being sung by a well-meaning, yet surprisingly tone-deaf nun to get the full effect.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-28-05 10:03 AM
I myself might bid $5000 on a potato chip, but I wouldn't pay.
People do pay; some casino has been swooping these things up. I imagine seeing Holy Velveeta on display makes its patrons feel lucky.
BTW: When you bid on something on eBay [or other auction site], you are entering into a contract to purchase. As in meatspace, this is a real obligation. And Ghod will punish you if you toy with sales of sacred objects. You have been warned. [But, for a small fee, we can provide you with a Magic Poncho that will protect your soul from passing demons and IRS employees...]
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-28-05 10:10 AM
1-60, you guys seriously need to get laid. At least go outside for walk.
Posted by Veta | Link to this comment | 05-28-05 5:39 PM
888
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01-21-06 4:38 AM