Posted by Ian E-N on September 18, 2000 at 10:21:37 from es-electronics.lancs.ac.uk:
In Reply to: Re: More about Pauline Marshall, Broadcast and Memoirs... posted by Peter Roche on September 17, 2000 at 18:13:31:
>>"Quite clearly, it makes him an exception to the rule"
>It's the exception that proves the rule to be false.
so the rule in this case is that there is no rule ? I thought Andy had delineated demonstrable general cases.
The Phrase Finder Bulletin Board ( take a look if only to see a different application and version of this board software) takes your view; proves = tests.
however The alt.usage.english FAQ demonstrates a different ruling; proves = demonstrates :-
"A rule is not proved by exceptions unless the exceptions themselves lead one to infer a rule' (Lord Atkin)."
"exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis = The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted."
The explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the contrary prevails otherwise.
eg. Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight till 11.0 p.m.
ie. this special leave implies a rule requiring men, except when an exception is made, to be in earlier.
Personally less interested in who, what and where AR based things on, more interested in with what and where my family and I can do things in a similar vein.