🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bx5DIB.8qF@cck.coventry.ac.uk>, esz001@cck.coventry.ac.uk
(Will Overington) writes:
|> I missed the start of this thread, but wonder if the the problem
|> that people are having with
|> 
|> All crows are not black
|> 
|> is along the lines of
|> 
|> All that glitters is not gold
|> 
|> where the "All" is, in fact, a peculiar idiom of the English language
|> that means "Some", but with an emphasis of a kind.
|> 
Robert Anton Wilson, in his various explications of the Non-Aristotelian
work of Korsybski, discusses in
some length the problems inherent in this statement; basically, it seems
to be the use of the verb 'to be',
which is usually incorrect. Elimination of the absolute assertion in its
pernicious forms copes with many
problems of semantics; the usual example list includes:
   the electron is a wave -> the electron, constrained thus, manifests
wave properties
   the electron is a particle -> the .... manifests particle properties
   Janet is a feminist -> Janet said she thinks women can program
computers as well as men
   A crow is black -> The crows I have seen were black
   that is a lie -> that seems like a lie to me.
Wilson comes up with a neat proposal; namely, the replacement of the
word 'all' in general usage by the word 'sombunall', being a contraction
of 'SOMe BUt Not ALL'; thus sombunall crows are black, which I think we
could all agree on?
Rich!
the above statements seem to me to be mine and no-one else's; I make no
absolute assertions in them, so don't blame me if you still confuse my
maps with your territory.
(sorry if this is obvious, but I thought it solved a few problems.)