From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,964d2064d770b61a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ichbiah@twsolutions.com (Jean D. Ichbiah)
Subject: Re: DEWAR (Spelled correctly!), Chill out
Date: 1998/02/05
Message-ID: <34d9d4a2.2972033@news.tiac.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 322320557
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <34C7BA3D.4C41@cs.umd.edu> <dewar.885510066@merv>
 <34d891ea.15839537@news.tiac.net> <dewar.886511817@merv>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Textware Solutions
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 3 Feb 1998 08:17:37 -0500, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
wrote:

> Jean said
> 
> <<I cannot remember a single strenuous argument with Robert in
> which he did not end up agreeing with me!
> >>
> 
> Gosh that's odd, I have exactly the same impression :-)

We, language lawyers, tend to be very precise with
the way we express ourselves.  Only a green beginner
would fail to see that

"he ended up agreeing with me"

is miles away from either of

"he ended up agreeing with my initial viewpoint"
"I ended up agreeing with his initial viewpoint"

The meaning is very precise and for those who need
language commentaries it really means that the strenuous
discussion led to a viewpoint that was agreeable to both.



Jean Ichbiah
Textware Solutions
ichbiah@twsolutions.com
http://www.twsolutions.com