From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Tue Apr 02 2002 - 10:12:11 PST
Ed Murphy wrote: > Each future rule must contain at least one othernomicreference [entry > from the 1942 Vladivostok phone book]. > > -- > Rule Date: 2002-04-02 07:22:25 GMT This rule is required to reinterpret at least one fyaphic word. This word does not reinterpret any previously existing fyaphic word. Perhaps the intent of Ed was to reinterpret what what would be the assumed meaning of othernomicreference? The question then is whether or not this counts as reinterpeting a fictitious word. As we know, the phrase "other nomic reference" is not fyaphic, for the words are real ones with standard meanings. Now, the word clearly becomes a fyaphic word after it is reinterpreted, but was it a fyaphic word before? It could be argued that the combination of "other nomic reference" into a single word "othernomicreference" makes it fyaphic. At the same time it would have to be maintained that the word othernomicreference, despite being fyaphic, has an obvious prima facie interpretation that gets reinterpreted as the entry from the 1942 Vladivostok phone book. I suppose that this is just barely reasonable enough to squeek by. VALID. +1 for perilous sailing near the brink of INVALIDITY, and for thinking of a clever way to reinterpret a fyaphic word. -- Rule Date: 2002-04-02 18:11:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST