[QUOTE=xilman;542546]As you note (indirectly) the word "proves" in this sense carries the rather archaic meaning of "tests" or "challenges". "Prove what you claim" carries a similar intention.[/QUOTE]I don't note anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, in fact. The meaning of [i]probat[/i] of the legal phrase is of a confirmatory nature.

The legal principle was, I vaguely recall having read, originally enunciated by Cicero in a worker's compensation case. The man had been denied compensation. Cicero pointed to an explicitly stated exception in which case compensation was denied. Cicero argued -- successfully -- that this meant that compensation was generally allowed in the pertinent circumstances.

The word whose meaning is really in question is [i]exception[/i], as indicated by my example, and others given [url=http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm]here[/url].

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542544] For example, don't park next to a fire hydrant. If you do, and the FD needs to use that hydrant, the firemen will simply smash out windows to allow them to run the hose from the hydrant to the fire. The car's owner is stuck with the cost of repairs, in addition to whatever infractions the municipality comes up with, starting with parking next to a fire hydrant...[/QUOTE]
I heard an account of a guy who parked by a hydrant. A fire happened to happen, and the fire truck, on arrival, "pushed the rear end of the car up against the engine." When the owner whined, a cop on the scene handed him a ticket.
Note: Fire trucks are truly massive, with bumpers to match. A passenger vehicle is a plastic toy in comparison.

[QUOTE=kladner;542579]I heard an account of a guy who parked by a hydrant. A fire happened to happen, and the fire truck, on arrival,[/QUOTE]
Image search 'firehose BMW' and understand that firehoses can leak under pressure. Tickets are given too.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542578]I don't note anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, in fact. The meaning of [i]probat[/i] of the legal phrase is of a confirmatory nature.

The legal principle was, I vaguely recall having read, originally enunciated by Cicero in a worker's compensation case. The man had been denied compensation. Cicero pointed to an explicitly stated exception in which case compensation was denied. Cicero argued -- successfully -- that this meant that compensation was generally allowed in the pertinent circumstances.

The word whose meaning is really in question is [i]exception[/i], as indicated by my example, and others given [url=http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm]here[/url].[/QUOTE]Chamber's dictionary is a comprehensive and highly respected work, second only to the OED in the UK. It lists alternative definitions in order of first historical usage. Under prove, the text begins:

to test, experience, suffer; to test the genuineness of; to ascertain as truth by argument or otherwise; to demonstrate; ....

It is the first of these meanings which applicable to the case in question.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;542586]Image search 'firehose BMW'[/QUOTE]
BMW like in "Break My Window"? :razz:

[QUOTE=xilman;542602]Chamber's dictionary is a comprehensive and highly respected work, second only to the OED in the UK. It lists alternative definitions in order of first historical usage. Under prove, the text begins:

to test, experience, suffer; to test the genuineness of; to ascertain as truth by argument or otherwise; to demonstrate; ....

It is the first of these meanings which applicable to the case in question.[/QUOTE]
I happened upon something about "the exception proves the rule" [url=https://philpapers.org/archive/HOLTEP.pdf]here[/url], and what to my wondering eyes should appear, but

[quote]Exceptio probat (figit[sup]2[/sup]) regulam in casibus non exceptis.

Exception (i.e. the act of excepting) proves (establishes) the rule in the cases not excepted.[/quote]

As I indicated before, it is [i]exception[/i] whose meaning is at issue -- its usage here is, the [i]act[/i] of excepting, not "a counterexample." Also, "rule" doesn't mean "statement of generality," but rather a legal mandate.

The footnote says (my emphasis):

[quote][sup]2[/sup]Whilst 'probat' maintains the ambiguity of the English 'prove', which can mean 'test' or 'establish', [b]the first citation given in the OED[/b], from Samuel Collins in 1617, uses 'figit', which can only mean the latter.[/quote]

[QUOTE=kladner;542579]I heard an account of a guy who parked by a hydrant. A fire happened to happen, and the fire truck, on arrival, "pushed the rear end of the car up against the engine." When the owner whined, a cop on the scene handed him a ticket.
Note: Fire trucks are truly massive, with bumpers to match. A passenger vehicle is a plastic toy in comparison.[/QUOTE]I assume "the engine" means the [i]car's[/i] engine. Must have been a Honda Accordion.

I do wonder about this account, though. I don't question that a fire truck could exert enough force to crumple a car, but I do wonder why the whole car didn't simply move (skid along the pavement) before being crumpled to that extent.

I imagine the owner would have gotten the ticket anyway.
Offense: Illegal parking.
Aggravating factor: Stupidity, i.e. parking in front of fire hydrant.
Second aggravating factor: Whining

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542622]I assume "the engine" means the [I]car's[/I] engine. Must have been a Honda Accordion.

I do wonder about this account, though. I don't question that a fire truck could exert enough force to crumple a car, but I do wonder why the whole car didn't simply move (skid along the pavement) before being crumpled to that extent.

I imagine the owner would have gotten the ticket anyway.
Offense: Illegal parking.
Aggravating factor: Stupidity, i.e. parking in front of fire hydrant.
Second aggravating factor: Whining[/QUOTE]
Yes. The car's engine.

ROFL @ Honda Accordion!

You make a good point about the car moving. This was just a tale I heard, and the guy who told it may have embellished, or made stuff up.

The smash-the-windows and put the hose through could be a better plan, though I wonder about the suction-side hoses being able to bend very much.

Politics über alles
 

Mystery? Perhaps not. Economic theater? Definitely!

[url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-name-to-appear-on-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-sent-to-americans-report]Trump's name to appear on coronavirus stimulus checks sent to Americans[/url][quote]President Trump's name will appear on millions of economic stimulus checks sent to Americans as part of the $2.2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by the president last month in an effort to stem the economic effects of the coronavirus.

Sources confirmed to Fox News that Trump's name will appear on paper checks -- in the memo section -- though his signature is not expected to be included.[/quote]
It seems he wanted to have his [i]signature[/i] put on the checks, but the President isn't authorized to sign Treasury disbursements.

This may not be quite as grandiose as (then) Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase wanting -- [url=http://www.antiquemoney.com/old-one-dollar-bill-value-price-guide/dollar-bank-notes-pictures-prices-history/value-of-one-dollar-1862-legal-tenders/]and getting[/url] -- his own likeness on the one-dollar bill (so as many people as possible would see it), but it's right up there.

Be it said, however, that as Treasury Secretary during the Civil War, Chase performed effectively.

Chase's portrait on the One was subsequently replaced, but later appeared on the ten-thousand-dollar bill, the highest denomination ever publicly circulated. (The one-hundred-thousand-dollar bill, though printed, and still legal tender, was never publicly circulated. It has Woodrow Wilson's portrait.)

Re. "the exception proves the rule", about which the OED agrees with DrS's from-the-Latin interpretation, "proverb the fact that some cases do not follow a rule proves that the rule applies in all other cases" -- my problem is not that said interpretation is incorrect, rather that it is utterly inane, in the sense of being a tautology, a mere restatement of "a given rule's applicability may be divided into [a] cases which follow the rule, and [b] cases which do not." The OED unhelpfully adds, "By specifically excluding cases where the rule doesn't apply, you make the rule stronger for the cases still governed by it" -- uh, no you don't. Either the rule applies to a case or it doesn't. And the mere fact of there being an exception, to say nothing of multiple ones, should call the logic of the rule into question. This is likely a difference in views between domains, specifically the domain of law, and that which I believe Paul has in mind, that of science, where finding an exception to a given rule often leads to said rule being, if not overturned entirely, being modified significantly. In that sense, in the realm of science it makes sense to repurpose said proverb in the sense where "prove" is as in "proving ground", as Paul notes, "to test, to challenge".

Virgin Atlantic looks like a first airline candidate to fail.

Richard Branson dared to dodge UK taxes and is now pleading for a tax payer bailout.
Judging by Daily Mail comments, the UK public is not amused.


[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8236395/Richard-Branson-warns-Virgin-Atlantic-collapse-without-500m-taxpayer-funded-bailout.html#comments[/url]