Apr 21, 2009
When common aphorisms don't make sense
A guest post by Wesley Hill
I’ve never understood the phrase, “the exception that proves the rule.”
An exception proves there isn’t a “rule” to begin with, right?
Subscribe to 22 Words
Recent Comments
- Will on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
- Stephen May on It’s not a slide, it’s a proto-steampunk ghetto park bench for one.
- Stephen May on Who or whom? A clear, simple answer from a professional grammarian
- Stephen May on Elitists in Minnesota town Lino Lakes approve English-only resolution
- Will Adair on How to become a wine expert and other advice for inexperienced wine lovers
Sponsors
Categories
- Arts in General (24)
- Bible (66)
- Blogging (153)
- Brevity (25)
- Constructive Criticism (268)
- Faith (210)
- Food & Drink (54)
- Language (214)
- Literature (104)
- Love (86)
- Miscellanea (286)
- Movies (14)
- Music (155)
- parenting (153)
- Personal (182)
- Questions (255)
- Quotes (41)
- Recommendations (129)
- Sports (8)
- Uncategorized (8)
- Visual Art (27)
- Writing (56)
Archives
- July 2010 (107)
- June 2010 (79)
- May 2010 (89)
- April 2010 (62)
- March 2010 (21)
- February 2010 (25)
- January 2010 (32)
- December 2009 (47)
- November 2009 (63)
- October 2009 (45)
- September 2009 (40)
- August 2009 (40)
- July 2009 (40)
- June 2009 (37)
- May 2009 (47)
- April 2009 (51)
- March 2009 (40)
- February 2009 (31)
- January 2009 (44)
- December 2008 (47)
- November 2008 (54)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (41)
- August 2008 (45)
- July 2008 (51)
- June 2008 (51)
- May 2008 (66)
- April 2008 (74)
- March 2008 (71)
- February 2008 (19)
Reader Recommendations
Some of the books and music that you, the readers, have recommended here over time:
Twitter Recommendations
Theme based on Derek Punsalan's Grid Focus.
I have never, ever understood that saying. And I was always too embarrassed to admit it, because it sounds really clever.
I just don’t understand it at all.
Well, I think it means at least this: If there were no rule, there could be no exception; that we recognize something as an exception, proves there is a rule–a standard–from which the exception deviates.
Like if I let my daughter go to the mall with her friends THIS time, I want her to know it’s an exception, not a precedent. The rule is: There are better things to do than hang out at the mall.
Noel is exactly right. There can be no such thing as an exception if there are no rules. It’s much like G.K. Chesterton’s famous observation that “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”
What’s funny is that “the exception that proves the rule” is a rule too.
Often it just means that the original rule was inadequately expressed.
We say, “the rule is X,” when really the rule is: if X then Y, otherwise Z. All that together is really the rule, at least in computer programming.
I think “prove” should be understood as “demonstrates” – a rule has been established, and the exception serves to show the presence of that rule.
For instance, if you pass a store that has a sign out front saying “10% off on Saturdays”, it’s reasonable to assume that they charge full price on other days. The sign that advertises the exception demonstrates the usual rule: everything is not on sale Sunday-Friday.
I guess calling something a “rule” is just a universal way to convey, “this how it is 99 times out of 100″.
It’s a stretch of the term “rule”; although, perhaps a different word could/should be used?
I wonder how many exceptions can there be for a rule to still be a rule? Such as, if there are more than 5 or even 10 exceptions, shouldn’t it be considered a “common occurrence” instead of an actual rule?
The classic rule and exception:
I before “e”, except after “c”.
And yet there are exceptions to this exception:
weird
sufficient
Argh!!!
David White has it right.
The meaning of the statement, “The exception proves the rule” is that stating an exception to a rule implies that no other exceptions exist, i.e., that the rule applies under all other conditions.
For well-documented support of this interpretation, see the last entry on this page:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/731
How deconstructive of you, Wes! I feel the system collapsing already.
In his book The Mother Tongue, Bill Bryson cites this as an example of a “fossil”–a word preserved in an expression long after its meaning has shifted–saying “prove” once meant “test.” Other examples of fossils are “neck of the woods” (neck was once a parcel of land) and “bank teller” (tell once meant count). Interesting stuff.
And that is the exception that proves the rule!
But if you want to get theological, it’s a great way of expressing what makes a miracle miraculous.
Helpful comments, all. Thanks! I feel like I’ve learned a thing or two (or three).
“The exception that proves the rule:” Maybe it’s more clear to say, “The exception that demonstrates/indicates the existence of/calls for a/fits snugly – opposites attract – into a / rule?” Or, “The sin that proves [existence of] The Law?” (” ‘Without the Law, there is no transgression.’ “
We have this saying in Russian, and I could never understand it either.
I have never thought that saying was very accurate. The “exception” is simply that an “exception”. It doesn’t prove anything except that an exception was made.
Hey people, words have meaning. Use them correctly.
Ok, try this: The general rule is that ministers of the gospel should get formal training or else their sermons are going to be exegetical bunk.
Charles Spurgeon is the exception that proves the rule, because though, yes, he did not get formal training, he read so much on his own that he effectively did.
[...] Hill, guest posting at Abraham Piper’s microblog 22 Words, [...]