From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: [OT] Nuances of Language
Date:	Thu, 7 May 1998 10:13:04 -0400

David Buehrer wrote:
>/ > But Shadowrun would still be
>/ > Shadowrun if it didn't have magic, it would just be different.
>/
>/ Adam, I respect your work on this list greatly, but that has got to
>be
>/ the most moronic phrase in the entire English Language, and likely quite a
>/ few others. X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>/ different.
>
>But isn't language used to symbolically represent a world that's
>perceived abstractly?

Perceived abstractly? I don't quite follow...

>And if you'll look closely the top of an X looks like the top of a
>Y. So a Y is a different looking X, and vice versa. So from one
>viewpoint, "X would still be X if it didn't have Y, it would just be
>different." works.

Yes, unless having Y is a requirement for being X. Take that
sentence, replacing X with "a cube" and Y with "six sides".
"A cube would still be a cube if it didn't have six sides". Not
so... Since Y is a defining characteristic of X in this case, the
statement is not necessarily true (damn char set doesn't have
symbolic logic symbols, or I'd write it out :-).

>Just because your perspective is different then Adam's doesn't make
>Adam's perspective any less significant.

No, but it remains to be shown that magic is not a defining
characteristic of Shadowrun...

>Are we having fun yet :)

Eh. What choice do we have?

James Ojaste