Re: "people" is not the plural of "person"


"R J Valentine" <rj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dojg7q$qgc$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:33:23 -0800 Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirshenbaum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> } Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ...
> }> Possibly true: "'People' is a plural of 'person'".
> }>
> }> Indisputably false: "'People' is the plural of 'person'"
> }>
> }> , "indisputably" because it's conclusively proven to be
> }> false by the counterexample "'Persons' is a plural of
> }> 'person'".
> }
> } I'd say that that assertion has the same truth value as
> }
> } Indisputably false: "The second person singular subject pronoun is
> } 'you'".
>
> I agree. But I'd say 'That assertion has the same truth value as
>
> Indisputably false: "The second person singular subject pronoun is
> 'you'".'
>
> Mr. Cunningham is right, in his fashion, but I disagree with him. That
> Mr. Cunningham might honestly claim he does not know it is no effective
> counterexample in English usage to the statement that everyone knows that
> "person" is the singular of "people".

So, anyway, I was over in the Golden Age of AUE thread reading about The
Good Old Days when every little thing was worried to death, not like the
relaxed, easygoing nowadays, and then I came back here, and now I don't know
what to think. I feel a bad case of Posting While Drunk coming on.

> --
> R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... not" - what I found is just an assertion on the web. ... the play- you are simply saying that you don't care for the truth. ... Like when you scoff, based solely on your own uninformed intuition, at being told usage of "off of" is old; and then you're told that it is, you scoff, based solely on your uninformed intuition that says that the great writers of the centuries must necessarily have agreed with you, at the idea that anyone of literary note would have used it; and then when you're given a list of venerable uses, including some by people of literary note, you scoff at the idea that they really meant it to be taken as good usage. ... As to whether things that used to be said one way are now, whether occasionally or frequently or exclusively, said another way: yeah, languages changes, it always has changed, it isn't always logical, even the most standard features of a language are often based on earlier illogical leaps, that's life, deal with it, move on. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: New A C Grayling book
    ... So you are saying that 'through our reason, we can see that there is ... humans or other life forms around to identify it and use it. ... Some of these have nodes where we recognise the 'truth' of the logical deduction. ... be made with any degree of confidence, just like any other assertion. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Godels theorem is invalid?
    ... > Then his definition of truth simply does not match the classical one. ... I am not saying that I agree with Tennant's arguments (which are based ... What exactly do you mean by the assertion ... > NOT ONE IOTA OF IMPACT on the TRUTH or the MEANING ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... >>begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... >>All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... > I actually care about what's true versus talking. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... >>begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... >>All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... > I actually care about what's true versus talking. ...
    (sci.math)