Re: Judgement 180:4 INVALID 0

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 20:10:37 PST


"Richard S. Holmes" wrote:

>   A rule containing the word Splitsplotsplinksplonk shall never have
>   its description [The bracketed one] after it.
>
> Nothing in this rule or any other rule asserts that every rule must
> have a description or that such a description, if it exists, must be a
> part of the rule it describes.

I disagree.  This construction seems to me to create a strong implication that
these definitions actually exist.  If it were just the use of "its description" I
could say that the rule is referring to some sort of abstract, Platonic description
of the rule, which could in some sense be considered to exist.  But the clarifier
"[the bracketed one]" has the two features that:

1) The definite article "the" is used.  If it were really the case that you were
not referring to any existent or specific description, the indefinite article "a"
should have been used instead.

2) The specific description of the rule we are looking for is the one in brackets.
That is, this description is textual, surrounded by brackets.

Examples:

"The President will not see a unicorn today" does NOT indicate that any unicorn
exists.

"The President will not see his unicorn (the one by the pool) today" DOES indicate
quite strongly that the unicorn exists and that a specific unicorn is being
referred to.

The Judge

--
Rule Date: 2002-04-02 04:10:11 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST