In a message dated 12/8/2013 6:51:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: It's not that "technical", compared to other fields - including philosophy. But then I would focus on the semantics, or as Geary says, when diminishing or minimising a topic, the 'semantics' (the 'semantics' of "war"). "Even an EXHAUSTIVE title search of the chain of title would not give the purchaser complete security, largely because of the principle, nemo dat quod non habet ("no one gives what he does not have") -- i. A owns x ii. B 'sells' x (which belongs to A). iii. C 'buys' x (which belongs to A). "Nemo dat quod non habet". If we replace "dat" by 'sells', we have a few analytic principles (axioms): I. No one gives what he does not have. II. No one sells what he does not own. III. No one buys what is not sold. ---- Oddly, there are a few 'implicatures' here. As Grice notes, it's not what _holds_ but what the agent INTENDS that holds. So one may distinguish between the ('illocutionary') act of 'buying' and 'selling' -- "I hereby sell", "I hereby buy" -- from the INTENTION to sell and notably in this case, the intention to buy (or not). If there are implicatures, there are possibly entailments, too. In more than one 'sense' or direction. Note ps. below. Cheers, Speranza --- "to entail" -- mid-14c., to "convert (an estate) into 'fee tail' (feudum talliatum)," from en- (1) "make" + taile "legal limitation," especially of inheritance, ruling who succeeds in ownership and preventing it from being sold off, from Anglo-French taile, Old French taillie, past participle of taillier "allot, cut to shape," from Late Latin taliare. Sense of "have consequences" is 1829, from notion of "inseparable connection." Related: Entailed; entailling. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html