Bryan Donlan on Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:55:57 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] Wonko's loophole

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:15:18 -0800 (PST), Dan Schmidt <tiber264@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First loopohole is no a noun nor is it any part of
> speach. That's not what I ment at all.If Wonko had
> said "I cannot disinguish my actions from throwing
> tomatos" then his loophole would have worked even if
> there are no tomatos.The action he indistinguishes
> from could be anything as long as it is a legal
> action.Just saying that an action is indistingushable
> from a legal action doesn't work; you need to define
> it.

If it's indistinguishable from itself, and it's legal, it's legal. Now
you just have to decide from which direction you approach the problem.

> I'll Call For Justice is I need to.
> Roduni, Yendoru no Taikyoku Sho Jushi,Who likes to
> point out that if indistinguishable is a word then
> indisingush is a word

Actually, it isn't. Distinguish is, but indistinguish isn't. English
is full of funny little exceptions like that. It doesn't make much
sense to say indistinguish either:

distinguish = notice the difference between two items
distinguishable = possible to distinguish
indistinguishable = impossible to distinguish
indistinguish = ...?

As a final note:
>From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

       n 1: an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or
            contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty
            or obligation
       2: a small hole in a fortified wall; for observation or
          discharging weapons

spoon-discuss mailing list