Discussion:
Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
r***@immi.gov.au
2007-05-04 06:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:

>As I've often said, there is no discussion as to the laws, just
>as to the frequency with which the exceptions prove the rule.

Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm

[snip]

These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an
inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the
existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule
applies in all other cases and so is generally correct,
notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the
logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a
rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the
old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove
the rule that all crows are black.

[snip]

It's not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but
exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow
the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that
is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies.
The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal
principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which
may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases
not excepted".

Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a
notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may
reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other
six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry
free today" leads to the implication that entry is not free on
other days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never-ending
sales that some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W
Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave
is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which
implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before
that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that
the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the
existence of the rule.

Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the
origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it
will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in
lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and
decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an
exception.....


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
Herman De Wael
2007-05-04 07:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Richard, I really don't know what you are trying to do here.

You are talking about exceptions to rules, and whether this proves or
disproves the rules.

But what we were talking about (and I forget about which thread you
are talking about in this specific instance - it's not important) are
not rules, but advice to players. Or actions of those players. Or
things that will happen when the TD arrives at the table.

No rules, no general statements. Just statements about what is likely
to be happening.

In cases like that, exceptions are expected. And we should look at the
bigger picture, and make decisions about how many exceptions there
will be when one statement is issued, and how many when some other
statement is issued.

So when I say that, in general, a certain way of ruling will be
expected, there is no use in you telling us that once, in 1980, a
different ruling was issued. Because my statement already admitted
that there could be exceptions, and one exception in 25 years is
hardly worth talking about - in fact, my words "in general" should be
altered to "in an overwhelming majority of cases".

So you may talk philosophy as much as you want, I will return to
talking about bridge laws ...

***@immi.gov.au wrote:
> Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:
>
>> As I've often said, there is no discussion as to the laws, just
>> as to the frequency with which the exceptions prove the rule.
>
> Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule:
>

[irrelevant and snipped]

--
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be
Alain Gottcheiner
2007-05-04 08:00:08 UTC
Permalink
At 16:07 4/05/2007 +1000, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:
>Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:
>
> >As I've often said, there is no discussion as to the laws, just
> >as to the frequency with which the exceptions prove the rule.
>
>Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule:
>
>http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
>
>[snip]
>
>These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an
>inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the
>existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule
>applies in all other cases and so is generally correct,
>notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the
>logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a
>rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the
>old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove
>the rule that all crows are black.

I'm sorry, guys, you're discussing the wrong subject.

"exception probat regulam" means "an exception puts the rule to the test",
ie you'll often have to change or at least adapt your rule after
discovering an exception. The latter part of the sentence is to be
understood as "in such a way that even other cases will be affected by the
change".

"probare" bears the same double-entendre as "proof" (you wouldn't care
about demonstrating a pudding, would you ?)

Best regards

Alain
Tim West-Meads
2007-05-04 13:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Alain wrote:
>
> "exception probat regulam" means "an exception puts the rule to the
> test",

Basically I agree Alain, but I think it's a bit stronger than "test". A
reasonable translation might be "An exception *disproves* a rule, even in
cases which appear to conform." Or more colloquially "A single
exception disproves a rule."

Tim
Nigel
2007-05-04 15:16:56 UTC
Permalink
[Richard Hilss Quotes
Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule]

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm

[snip]

These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an
inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the
existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule
applies in all other cases and so is generally correct,
notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the
logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a
rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the
old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove
the rule that all crows are black.

[snip]

It's not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but
exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow
the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that
is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies.
The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal
principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which
may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases
not excepted".

Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a
notice which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may
reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other
six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry
free today" leads to the implication that entry is not free on
other days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never-ending
sales that some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W
Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave
is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which
implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before
that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that
the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the
existence of the rule.

Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the
origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it
will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in
lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and
decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an
exception.....

{nige1]
Excellent stuff, Richard :)
The educational value of BLML is much enhanced by literary and philosophical quotations from Grattan Endicott, David Burn, yourself and others :)
Alain Gottcheiner
2007-05-07 08:03:24 UTC
Permalink
At 16:16 4/05/2007 +0100, Nigel wrote:

>The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal
>principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which
>may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases
>not excepted".
>

I'm sorry, Sir; this is simply not true. Check for example at :

http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm
http://seaflower.deviantart.com/

And you'll find the original sense, which dates back to Antiquity :
"an exception tests the rule".
A sort of pre-Popperian falsifiability principle, so to speak.

What has been done of it thereafter is another story.

Regards

Alain
Nigel
2007-05-08 02:52:48 UTC
Permalink
[At 16:16 4/05/2007 +0100, Nigel (allegedly) wrote]

> The true origin of the phrase
> lies in a medieval Latin legal
> principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which
> may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases
> not excepted".
>
]Alain Gottcheiner]
I'm sorry, Sir; this is simply not true. Check for example at :
http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm
<http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm>http://seaflower.deviantart.com/
<http://seaflower.deviantart.com/>And you'll find the original sense,
which dates back to Antiquity : "an exception tests the rule". A sort of
pre-Popperian falsifiability principle, so to speak. What has been done
of it thereafter is another story. Regards Alain

[nigel]
You flatter me Alain :)
I didn't write that -- but it makes sense to me :)
...Richard Hills wrote that :)
......And he was quoting Michael Quinion :)
.........Who, in turn, was quoting - inter alia - H W Fowler :)
............But even Alain's own source translates it as :)
...............The exception *confirms* the rule :)

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
Steve Willner
2007-05-05 15:05:48 UTC
Permalink
> From: ***@immi.gov.au
> Wikipedia, logical fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam":

Nicely put, Richard. Your failure to understand Herman's point doesn't
mean he is wrong. (Nor does it mean he is right, of course.)
r***@immi.gov.au
2007-05-07 06:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Steve Willner:

>Nicely put, Richard. Your failure to understand Herman's
>point doesn't mean he is wrong. (Nor does it mean he is
>right, of course.)

Richard Hills:

I do understand that on one occasion Herman attempted to
score a point with the classical Euclidean argument of
"reductio ad absurdum" (proving the truth of a hypothesis
by assuming that the opposite hypothesis is true, then
demonstrating that the opposite hypothesis has an absurd
consequence).

G. H. Hardy (1877-1947):

"Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one
of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer
gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the
sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician
offers the game."

WBF Laws Committee minute, 24th August 1998:

"The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that
where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to
be authorized, other actions if not expressly forbidden
were also legitimate. The Committee ruled that this is not
so; the Scope of the Laws states that the laws define
correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws
is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an
infraction of law if information deriving from it is used
in the auction or play."

Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:

>>This sentence is often quoted. Yet is proves nothing.
>>Every statement that is not in the laws has an opposite.
>>If it is true that a statement which is not in the laws
>>is illegal, then its opposite, also not in the laws, is
>>also illegal.
>>
>>"There is nothing in the laws that says that to hide
>>your cards from opponents is allowed, therefore it must
>>be illegal. Please show me your cards!"

Cicero (106-43 BCE):

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said
it."

Richard Hills:

Herman's attempted "reductio ad absurdum" argument is
itself absurd, degenerating into the "straw man" logical
fallacy.

It is true that a WBF LC minute which said, "any action
not specifically authorised in the Lawbook is an
infraction", would be absurd. But that "straw man" is
not the WBF LC actually said. Rather, the WBF LC said:

"may be deemed an infraction **if information deriving
from it is used** in the auction or play."


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
r***@immi.gov.au
2007-05-07 22:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Michael Quinion:

>>The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal
>>principle:
>>exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be
>>translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the cases not
>>excepted".

Alain Gottcheiner:

>I'm sorry, Sir; this is simply not true. Check for example at :
>
>http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm
>
>And you'll find the original sense, which dates back to Antiquity :
>"an exception tests the rule".

Practical Latin website:

>>>exceptio probat regulam: "the exception establishes the rule."

Alain Gottcheiner:

>A sort of pre-Popperian falsifiability principle, so to speak.
>
>What has been done of it thereafter is another story.

Michael Quinion:

>>It has often been suggested in reference works that _prove_ here is
>>really being used in the sense of "test" (as it does in terms like
>>"proving ground" or "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or in
>>the printer's proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is
>>correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind
>>the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests
>>whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can't reconcile the
>>supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong
>>with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that's
>>not where it comes from or what it strictly means.

Richard Hills:

Qui nimium probat, nihil probat.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm
Alain Gottcheiner
2007-05-08 07:49:18 UTC
Permalink
At 08:45 8/05/2007 +1000, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:


>Practical Latin website:
>
> >>>exceptio probat regulam: "the exception establishes the rule."


Yes, it's a very common error.

About 90% of English-speaking Frenchmen translate "the proof of the pudding
..." as "la preuve du pudding...", which is ridiculous.
Why would it be impossible that the same error be committed here ?
(remark that "proof" is made on the same root as "probare". In English,
"probare" gave both "probe" and " prove", but the substantive is the same.
In French we have "éprouver" vs "prouver")

> >>It has often been suggested in reference works that _prove_ here is
> >>really being used in the sense of "test" (as it does in terms like
> >>"proving ground" or "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or in
> >>the printer's proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is
> >>correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind
> >>the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests
> >>whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can't reconcile the
> >>supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong
> >>with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that's
> >>not where it comes from or what it strictly means.

I'm an admirator of Quinion's work, but disagree with him on this point.
The problem is, he considers the English translation "prove" as the basis
of his argumentation (that the second sense is too uncommon), but the error
was committed upstream, when translating from Latin. The translation
shouldn't have been "prove" in the first place.

Another well-known translation error from Latin has made Mary a virgin,
when she only was a young lady (virgo). No need to invoke a double-entendre
in the English word.

Come to think of it, what does an exception do ? Reinforce the rule, or
weaken it ?

Best regards

Alain
Loading...