Re: Etymology of the Italian surname 'Brighenti'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 4:16:58 AM on Thursday, September 25, 2008, tgpedersen
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 10:59:35 AM on Wednesday, September 24, 2008, tgpedersen
> >> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> So you've paid no attention to the fact that pre-nasal
> >> raising is a natural phenomenon that occurs elsewhere; I
> >> know of no evidence that pre-lateral raising of /e/ is
> >> natural.
>
> > I hadn't thought of that one.
>
> It's been discussed in this thread.

Where? And I've countered that one, so that is irrelevant in the
discussion.

> [...]
>
> >>> Nonsense. As you should know, if you have a set you can
> >>> define it either by enumeration or by a defining function.
> >>> There can be several of those. You use as generating
> >>> function the rules you root for, and then you claim it's
> >>> just a description.
>
> >> Because it is, of course. A set, mathematical or otherwise,
> >> can have more than one description. The description may
> >> suggest a particular construction of the set, but it does
> >> not in general *entail* a particular construction.
>
> > But that's what you are using in your reasoning. The set
> > can be generated this way, therefore it *was* generated
> > this way.
>
> I said no such thing. And since I have now made this point
> clearly and explicitly more than once, I conclude that you
> are deliberately lying or incapable of understanding, and in
> either case a waste of my time.

That's right. You didn't *say* that. You never phrased it as causal
explanation. There was no 'therefore' anywhere. I assumed that you
would conceptually distinguish between cause and effect, but I was
wrong; apparently the two are fused in your mind. And I agree: the
time you have wasted arguing with me, you could more profitable have
used on a elementary textbook on the methods of science.


Torsten