Newsgroups: misc.taxes,misc.legal,alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!recepsen.aa.msen.com!rotag!kevin
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: I JUST REAMED TED FRANK.......AND NOW DANNY!
Message-ID: <1995Sep17.005818.5886@rotag.mi.org>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <418lf3$kng@earth.superlink.net> <4319oa$mfq@earth.superlink.net> <434cad$b63@netaxs.com> <439gm5$ntq@earth.superlink.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 00:58:18 GMT
Lines: 107


In article <439gm5$ntq@earth.superlink.net> dcinege@superlink.net writes:
>In <434cad$b63@netaxs.com>, evansdb@netaxs.com writes:
>>
>>The question relates to this sentence:
>>
>>"The word 'person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general
>>word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities
>>other than human beings"
>>
>>The problem with your understanding of the sentence is that 
>>"other than" modfies "entities" not "person."

Agreed. Grammatically, the structure of the sentence is as follows:

{noun phrase} {verb phrase} {noun phrase}

Noun phrase #1 is 

	The word 'person' in legal terminology

Verb phrase is

	is perceived as

Noun phrase #2 is

	a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of
	entities other than human beings

Obviously, noun phrase #2 is complex, being composed of smaller phrases. I 
don't care to go through the tedious detail of further analyzing its structure.
But, regardless, it is apparent that "other than" is in a totally different
(top-level) noun phrase than "person", so it defies common sense to claim that 
the former modifies the latter. That would be like saying that "lazy" modifies
"fox", rather than "dog", in the famous "quick brown fox" sentence. 

>>(And "includes" enlarges the meaning of "person" and does not
>>restrict it, but it's hopeless to try to get you to understand that.)
>
>Hog Shit.

So "includes" can be restrictive, eh? Can you give some other example where
the verb "include" is used in a restrictive sense?

>>"The word 'person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general
>>word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities
>>other than human beings"
>
>According to Americans Heritage dictionary direct replacment of the
>term 'other than' is 'except'.
>
>"The word 'person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general
>word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities
>except human beings"
>
>Means the same thing as the original quote.

"Other than" is only equivalent to "except", in the context of some sort
of (positive or negative) universal quantification. Examples:

	(positive)
	I like all pizza toppings other than anchovies
	I like all pizza toppings except anchovies

	(negative)
	There's nothing in my mailbox other than junk mail
	There's nothing in my mailbox except junk mail

In the absence of a universal quantification, however, "other than" is not
equivalent to "except", and, in fact, is not even semantically valid.

For example, the sentence

	John eats desserts other than chocolate mousse

is fine, semantically, and leaves open the possibility of John eating, say, 
apple pie a la mode, but the "translated" sentence

	John eats desserts except chocolate mousse

isn't even semantically valid, and even if repair is attempted, e.g.

	John eats desserts, with the exception of chocolate mousse

the sentence now PRECLUDES John eating apple pie a la mode by implying a 
universal quantification, i.e. "John eats all desserts, ...").

Since there is no universal quantification in the sentence in question:

	The word 'person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general
	word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities
	other than human beings

, "other than" is not equivalent to "except" in that sentence.

								- Kevin
-- 
PROFILES IN INCOHERENCE, Part 36:

"bice try as a dishonest diversion, bue keith's post did not claim what you 
 state it will claim. you seem to be having more than enough problems with 
 what is said and what is not said rather than confuse your little mine
 with what you claim, incorrectly, will be a future act."
				james g. keegan jr., keegan@helios.acm.rpi.edu
				15 Nov 1994 22:51:43 GMT
				<3abe1v$m4h@usenet.rpi.edu>
