|
|
Posted by Luigi Donatello Asero on 11/19/01 11:34
"Luigi Donatello Asero" <jaggillarfotboll@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ccsnf.152302$dP1.509961@newsc.telia.net...
>
> "mbstevens" <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:C_rnf.3541$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.
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
what the positive definition is about.
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/rom-lagenhet-nara-colosseo.php
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|