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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 04:28:21 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!newsfeed2.news.nl.uu.net!sun4nl!not-for-mail From: Karel Thoenissen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do? Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:34:20 +0100 Organization: UUNET-NL (http://www.nl.uu.net) Message-ID: <3A5B054B.3CF03325@hello.nl> References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net> <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br> <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br> <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934kt2$gbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <937jvn$si3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93bv37$43b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e2d1$spv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93eoku$cm2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust191.tnt28.rtm1.nl.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: porthos.nl.uu.net 979043222 961 213.116.150.191 (9 Jan 2001 12:27:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@nl.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jan 2001 12:27:02 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [nl]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: nl,de,en Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3805 Date: 2001-01-09T12:27:02+00:00 List-Id: n_brunot@my-deja.com schreef: > >(by the way, you have garbled the idiom > > here, it is "exceptions prove the rule", and the word prove > > here means "test" not "proof" as in mathematics. > > I trust you for the idiom :-) > But, it was litteral translation from french, where (to my knowledge, > may be I'm wrong) it means that when you find a very small number of > exceptions to a rule, widely true otherwise, you'd better trust the rule > is most cases, rather than thinking you met an exception each time rule > goes against your convinctions. Exactly the same thing in Dutch: 'uitzonderingen bevestigen de regel' (exceptions _confirm_ the rule). To my knowledge and that of my dictionary this is not taken from English. I took a look in my dictionary of proverbs, with proverbal translations and explanations in each of these langauges: Dutch Uitzonderingen bevestigen de regel => Geen regel zonder uitzondeing German Ausnahmen best�tigen die Regel => Keine Regel ohne Ausnahme French L' exception confirme la r�gle => Pas de r�gle sans exception English Exceptions prove the rule => There is no rule without some exception There is nothing round-trip here. Quite to the contrary, it is very likely that the proverb came into English via French! And prove means to deliver proof. -- Groeten, Karel Th�nissen Hello Technologies develops high-integrity software for complex systems