Don't you have any money with you?
1) I do. I took the cash in the drawer.
I think that means I took all of the cash in the drawer. Would you agree?

Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?

Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
3) They did. They ate the fruit on that tree.
Does that imply they ate all of the fruit on the tree?

What did you have for dessert in the summer?
4) We ate the fruit on that tree.
Does that imply we ate all of the fruit on the tree?

With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
> Don't you have any money with you?
> 1) I do. I took the cash in the drawer.
> I think that means I took all of the cash in the drawer. Would you agree?

This is the one that implies the "all". But it isn't fer shur, and I
don't think there's a rule you can use; this is a matter of custom
rather than logic.

> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?

No.

> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
> 3) They did. They ate the fruit on that tree.
> Does that imply they ate all of the fruit on the tree?

No.

> What did you have for dessert in the summer?
> 4) We ate the fruit on that tree.
> Does that imply we ate all of the fruit on the tree?

No.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:

>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?

> No.

My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.

--
Sarah, age 18, says "man, once you go Crayola you can't go back."

El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:

> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>
>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>
>> No.
>
> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.

It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits (if
that's what "cookies" are).

Strange thing to do, but hey.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 2022-07-02 15:22:48 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:

> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>
>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>
> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits (if
> that's what "cookies" are).
>
> Strange thing to do, but hey.

Eating the bickies, or putting them in the fridge in the first place?

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 18:01:27 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden escribió:

> On 2022-07-02 15:22:48 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:
>
>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>
>>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>>
>>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>>
>> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits
>> (if that's what "cookies" are).
>>
>> Strange thing to do, but hey.
>
> Eating the bickies, or putting them in the fridge in the first place?

Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
fridge.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
> course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
> fridge.
>
That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the fridge
and it *still* melted.

--
Ray
UK

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 2:08:20 PM UTC-4, musika wrote:
> On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> > Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
> > course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
> > fridge.
>
> That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the fridge
> and it *still* melted.

I hear there is a nite club called "The Fridge" in London.

On 02/07/2022 7:08 pm, musika wrote:
> On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one
>> lives, of
>> course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything
>> meltable in
>> fridge.
>>
> That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the
> fridge and it *still* melted.
>
>

*applause*

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

In message <pan$5b85c$568c871$fa547b76$3d51d9ed@gmail.com> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:

>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>
>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.

> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits (if
> that's what "cookies" are).

I do not believe for a second that that is actually what you would
think.

--
The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music.

On 02-Jul-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 02/07/2022 7:08 pm, musika wrote:
>> On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>> Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
>>> course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
>>> fridge.
>>>
>> That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the
>> fridge and it *still* melted.
>>
>>
>
> *applause*
>
Would mention of dry ice change the type of humour?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:24:38 PM UTC-6, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 02-Jul-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 02/07/2022 7:08 pm, musika wrote:
> >> On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> >>> Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
> >>> course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
> >>> fridge.
> >>>
> >> That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the
> >> fridge and it *still* melted.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > *applause*
> >
> Would mention of dry ice change the type of humour?

Has anyone suggested that "dry humor" is an oxymoron?

--
Jerry Friedman

El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 19:08:15 +0100, musika escribió:

> On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
>> course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
>> fridge.
>>
> That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the fridge
> and it *still* melted.

I keep my ice in the fridge. In the freezer compartment, obviously.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:43:24 +0000, Lewis escribió:

> In message <pan$5b85c$568c871$fa547b76$3d51d9ed@gmail.com> Paul
> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>>
>>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>
>> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits
>> (if that's what "cookies" are).
>
> I do not believe for a second that that is actually what you would
> think.

I've just eaten toast and egg in the kitchen. Yes, really. I was in the
kitchen when I ate it.

It's so easy to avoid ambiguity, so why not do exactly that?

I remember once saying to a friend "I got married in these shoes" to
which he replied "I can believe that" (I have big feet).

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 2022-07-03 07:39:22 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:

> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:43:24 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>> In message <pan$5b85c$568c871$fa547b76$3d51d9ed@gmail.com> Paul
>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>
>>>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>>>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>>
>>> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits
>>> (if that's what "cookies" are).
>>
>> I do not believe for a second that that is actually what you would
>> think.
>
> I've just eaten toast and egg in the kitchen. Yes, really. I was in the
> kitchen when I ate it.
>
>
> It's so easy to avoid ambiguity, so why not do exactly that?

Femember who started this thread. I must have said something along
those lines about 330 times to navi. He pays no attention.

>
> I remember once saying to a friend "I got married in these shoes" to
> which he replied "I can believe that" (I have big feet).

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

In message <pan$4f0c0$2b93c5cf$370e56b7$e28d29be@gmail.com> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:43:24 +0000, Lewis escribió:

>> In message <pan$5b85c$568c871$fa547b76$3d51d9ed@gmail.com> Paul
>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>
>>>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>>>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>>
>>> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits
>>> (if that's what "cookies" are).
>>
>> I do not believe for a second that that is actually what you would
>> think.

> I've just eaten toast and egg in the kitchen. Yes, really. I was in the
> kitchen when I ate it.

Which is entirely different that the cookies in the fridge.

> It's so easy to avoid ambiguity, so why not do exactly that?

cause only a very simple person or one being a pedantic jerk would
misunderstand "They ate the cookies in the fridge."

> I remember once saying to a friend "I got married in these shoes" to
> which he replied "I can believe that" (I have big feet).

And your friend did not actually think you had a wedding in your shoes.

The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way to
impede it.

--
Where there is a party, everyone is there Everyone will leave at
exactly the same time When this party is over it will start again
But not been any different be exactly the same

On 2022-07-03 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <pan$4f0c0$2b93c5cf$370e56b7$e28d29be@gmail.com> Paul
> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:43:24 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>>> In message <pan$5b85c$568c871$fa547b76$3d51d9ed@gmail.com> Paul
>>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>>
>>>>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>>>>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>>>
>>>> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits
>>>> (if that's what "cookies" are).
>>>
>>> I do not believe for a second that that is actually what you would
>>> think.
>
>> I've just eaten toast and egg in the kitchen. Yes, really. I was in the
>> kitchen when I ate it.
>
> Which is entirely different that the cookies in the fridge.
>
>> It's so easy to avoid ambiguity, so why not do exactly that?
>
> cause only a very simple person or one being a pedantic jerk would
> misunderstand "They ate the cookies in the fridge."
>
>> I remember once saying to a friend "I got married in these shoes" to
>> which he replied "I can believe that" (I have big feet).
>
> And your friend did not actually think you had a wedding in your shoes.
>
> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way to
> impede it.

Who was it talking about pedantic jerks a moment ago?

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

El Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis escribió:

> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way to
> impede it.

I am currently learning classical Latin. I have no intention whatsoever
of communicating with it.

> "entirely different that"

I'm sure that means something.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:31:02 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 4:24:38 PM UTC-6, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> > On 02-Jul-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > On 02/07/2022 7:08 pm, musika wrote:
> > >> On 02/07/2022 18:14, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> > >>> Choccy bikkies are best in the fridge. Depending on where one lives, of
> > >>> course. Currently over 30ºC in our kitchen, so anything meltable in
> > >>> fridge.
> > >>>
> > >> That's the last time I take advice from you! I put my ice in the
> > >> fridge and it *still* melted.
> > >
> > > *applause*
> > >
> > Would mention of dry ice change the type of humour?
>
> Has anyone suggested that "dry humor" is an oxymoron?

They are all mutually exclusive, right?

On 2022-07-03 04:45, Lewis wrote:
> In message <pan$4f0c0$2b93c5cf$370e56b7$e28d29be@gmail.com> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 21:43:24 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>>> In message <pan$5b85c$568c871$fa547b76$3d51d9ed@gmail.com> Paul
>>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> El Sat, 02 Jul 2022 11:56:23 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>>
>>>>> In message <mn.10cf7e677a4cad2d.127094@snitoo> Snidely
>>>>> <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't the children have any lunch yesterday?
>>>>>>> 2) They did. They ate the cookies in the fridge.
>>>>>>> Does that imply they ate all of the cookies in the fridge?
>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> My assumption would be that there are no more cookies in the fridge.
>>>
>>>> It says to me that they all piled into the fridge to eat the biscuits
>>>> (if that's what "cookies" are).
>>>
>>> I do not believe for a second that that is actually what you would
>>> think.
>
>> I've just eaten toast and egg in the kitchen. Yes, really. I was in the
>> kitchen when I ate it.
>
> Which is entirely different that the cookies in the fridge.

Skitt would be smiling if he read this.

>> It's so easy to avoid ambiguity, so why not do exactly that?
>
> cause only a very simple person or one being a pedantic jerk would
> misunderstand "They ate the cookies in the fridge."
>
>> I remember once saying to a friend "I got married in these shoes" to
>> which he replied "I can believe that" (I have big feet).
>
> And your friend did not actually think you had a wedding in your shoes.
>
> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way to
> impede it.

Another use of language is to bring a smile to the face of a listener.
Would not understanding that be a typical of a pedantic jerk?

--
What was the greatest thing before sliced bread?

In message <pan$d6af3$536ec818$34d79874$f7be8377@gmail.com> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
> El Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis escribió:

>> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way to
>> impede it.

> I am currently learning classical Latin. I have no intention whatsoever
> of communicating with it.

Communications works in two directions. You may not use it to
communicate, but you will use it to be communicated with.

--
a vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're
attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of
failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of
history.

El Mon, 04 Jul 2022 01:35:30 +0000, Lewis escribió:

> In message <pan$d6af3$536ec818$34d79874$f7be8377@gmail.com> Paul
> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>> El Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>>> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way
>>> to impede it.
>
>> I am currently learning classical Latin. I have no intention whatsoever
>> of communicating with it.
>
> Communications works in two directions. You may not use it to
> communicate, but you will use it to be communicated with.

From the grave.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

In message <pan$eae59$8f941eb1$1d220596$f07b11@gmail.com> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
> El Mon, 04 Jul 2022 01:35:30 +0000, Lewis escribió:

>> In message <pan$d6af3$536ec818$34d79874$f7be8377@gmail.com> Paul
>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> El Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>
>>>> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way
>>>> to impede it.
>>
>>> I am currently learning classical Latin. I have no intention whatsoever
>>> of communicating with it.
>>
>> Communications works in two directions. You may not use it to
>> communicate, but you will use it to be communicated with.

> From the grave.

So you will not be reading any classic Latin. How do you expect to learn
it?

--
Patty > Melt > Foundry > Terminator > SCSI > Voodoo > Economics >
Discworld > Ringworld > Niven > Pink Panther > Black Panther >
Avengers > Assemble > LEGO > Builder > Bob (word association with
geeks)

El Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:02:40 +0000, Lewis escribió:

> In message <pan$eae59$8f941eb1$1d220596$f07b11@gmail.com> Paul
> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>> El Mon, 04 Jul 2022 01:35:30 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>
>>> In message <pan$d6af3$536ec818$34d79874$f7be8377@gmail.com> Paul
>>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> El Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>>
>>>>> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way
>>>>> to impede it.
>>>
>>>> I am currently learning classical Latin. I have no intention
>>>> whatsoever of communicating with it.
>>>
>>> Communications works in two directions. You may not use it to
>>> communicate, but you will use it to be communicated with.
>
>> From the grave.
>
> So you will not be reading any classic Latin. How do you expect to learn
> it?

Hint: most ancient Romans are long dead.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

In message <pan$61ffd$130cb725$effb0615$38aa057a@gmail.com> Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
> El Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:02:40 +0000, Lewis escribió:

>> In message <pan$eae59$8f941eb1$1d220596$f07b11@gmail.com> Paul
>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> El Mon, 04 Jul 2022 01:35:30 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>
>>>> In message <pan$d6af3$536ec818$34d79874$f7be8377@gmail.com> Paul
>>>> Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> El Sun, 03 Jul 2022 10:45:32 +0000, Lewis escribió:
>>>>
>>>>>> The purpose of language is to communicate, not to go out of your way
>>>>>> to impede it.
>>>>
>>>>> I am currently learning classical Latin. I have no intention
>>>>> whatsoever of communicating with it.
>>>>
>>>> Communications works in two directions. You may not use it to
>>>> communicate, but you will use it to be communicated with.
>>
>>> From the grave.
>>
>> So you will not be reading any classic Latin. How do you expect to learn
>> it?

> Hint: most ancient Romans are long dead.

Are you?

--
“But I don’t understand! I don’t understand how this all happens. How we go
through this. I knew her, and then she’s – there’s just a body, and I don’t
understand why she just can’t get back in it and not be dead…anymore! It’s
stupid! It’s mortal and stupid! And…and Xander’s crying and not talking,
and…and I was having fruit punch, and I thought, well, Joyce will never have
any more fruit punch, ever, and she’ll never have eggs, or yawn, or brush her
hair, not ever, and no one will explain to me why!”