|
|
Posted by Luigi Donatello Asero on 11/19/20 11:34
"mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:C_rnf.3541$Tg2.1085@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
>
> >>>>>It's very *unaustralian* ;-)
>
> >>Yes, but how do you define it in words?
>
> > I mean, if you say that a certain behaviour is unaustralian, then you
need
> > define what is australian!
>
> No, you just need to know that it is against _one_ of the qualities you
> associate with being a thing. You don't need some _complete_ definition.
>
> Let's say you are acquainted with a Mr. X. You know that he wears only
> blue suits. You have seen him on the bus every day for years, always
> only in blue suits, but that's about all you know about him. If you saw
> him one day wearing a bright red suit, you could say that it is un-X
> kind of thing to do. But that is very different from having a
> definition of Mr. X.
But you still define Mr. X with reference to the colour of his suit.
In your example you assume that Mr. X usually has blue suits and that it
what the positive definition is about.
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/italien-ligurien/boende-i-ligurien-sovrum-1.php
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|