[blml] Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 16:07 4/05/2007 +1000, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote:
>Herman De Wael, "De Whale" thread, 18th April 2007:
>
> >As I've often said, there is no discussion as to the laws, just
> >as to the frequency with which the exceptions prove the rule.
>
>Michael Quinion, World Wide Words, Exception That Proves The Rule:
>
>http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
>
>[snip]
>
>These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an
>inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the
>existence of a case that doesn't follow a rule proves the rule
>applies in all other cases and so is generally correct,
>notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the
>logical implication of finding that something doesn't follow a
>rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the
>old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove
>the rule that all crows are black.

I'm sorry, guys, you're discussing the wrong subject.

"exception probat regulam" means "an exception puts the rule to the test", 
ie you'll often have to change or at least adapt your rule after 
discovering an exception. The latter part of the sentence is to be 
understood as "in such a way that even other cases will be affected by the 
change".

"probare" bears the same double-entendre as "proof" (you wouldn't care 
about demonstrating a pudding, would you ?)

Best regards

   Alain