for this and also for this
And this. Par-TAY!
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.
And also for just a group of people in general.
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, w-lfs-n, 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."
Have you considered law school?
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.
Did you just say that it doesn't hurt you to eat glass?
Yes.
Apparently I am an abusive user.
Haven't you seen The I Can Eat Glass Project?
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.
I was going to leave a commen tin this thread, but I thought better of it.
Ogged ... be careful what you ask for. You couldn't even handle my black boots, remember?
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.
In the picture, Kermit looks like he's gotten over his anxiety and mild depression. Way to go, Kerm.
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? :-)
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.
.jpg){kind=link}