[lit-ideas] Re: Ownership and the possessive case
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:51:17 EDT
In a message dated 5/6/2009 10:44:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
you'll grant it's enthymematic.
No, I won't.
----
I'd add that the ultimate conclusion of the enthymeme would be:
_You_ are an immoral *git*.
(uttered by Poppers to refer to Witters).
For if an example of a moral rule under the heading of 'ethics' (according
to an online source, the question was posed to Popper once Witters had
left, by an admiring student of Witters -- and thus it is _not_ the 'victory'
Popper, always ready to self-advertise, claims it to be) is
"not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers"
(I still feel this is ungrammatical, or in need of context. Surely as it
stands it's the _name_ of an action, an infinitive, but unrepresentable
unless meaning "p!", proposition and deontic operator (or neustic))
it would seem that
threaten visiting lecturers with pokers
would be _immoral_, which was what Witters was doing.
As an online source said, it was the facetiousness (?) of Popper's
self-conscious 'witty' rejoinder that had Witters over the edge, rightly.
JLS
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
