You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Grognor comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong Discussion

25 [deleted] 14 April 2012 09:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (513)
Tags: meta

Comments (513)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Grognor 14 April 2012 10:32:22PM *  5 points [-]

"The exception [that] proves the rule" is a frequently confused English idiom. The original meaning of this idiom is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes that a general rule existed.

-Wikipedia (!!!)

(I should just avoid this phrase from now on, if it's going to cause communication problems.)

Comment author: komponisto 16 April 2012 02:36:43AM *  2 points [-]

I suspect the main cause of misunderstanding (and subsequent misuse) is omission of the relative pronoun "that". The phrase should always be "[that is] the exception that proves the rule", never "the exception proves the rule".

Comment author: thomblake 16 April 2012 08:42:35PM 1 point [-]

Probably even better to just include "in cases not so excepted" at the end.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit