Comment: the following two paragraphs embody

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: err (see in situ)

the following two paragraphs embody

precisely why this conversation between you and me, is going no where, nor will it:

In logic, conclusions flow from premises with logic applied to them. If you agree with the logic, and not the conclusion, then you must disagree with a premise.


Not necessarily so.

Logic is the mechanism by which you apply your understood premise. Doesn't guarantee an immutable, same, repeatable conclusion, every time. That would be preposterous.

Oh? I "MUST disagree with a premise," if so?

Who says?

If you reach a wrong conclusion, even after deploying sound logic based on a sound premise, perhaps your premise isn't the problem or the logic applied; perhaps the participant is the problem.

After all, it all depends on the person carrying it all out.

So yes, premise and logic can be sound, but conclusion? Could be different than what's expected. Which is why, I can agree with the premise of your logic & argument, but not your conclusion.

This is just another way of saying: "I 'get'/understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree with you." Didn't think that would be that controversial, nor was it even that nuanced a distinction.

If you don't agree with my point, could you demonstrate why without going off on a completely unrelated concept like an antediluvian epoch?

That above sentence explains our minor irrelevant impasse: you already assume the "concept" is not relevant to the discussion, when to me, if the other person doesn't already realize why it IS relevant to this particular discussion we've been having, it's pointless to go on any further.

And, like I said, because it delves into 'that' arena, and that will be a lot longer discussion than I have the patience for in a non-face to face discussion format, it's bound not to be resolved. And, seeing as how I've mentioned it a few times, and you repeated that it's "irrelevant" enough times, it actually is, irrelevant, for me at this point to discuss it with you.

So, I see no point.

Also, you seem to think that this whole topic should be limited to being about a term cited in an already known text, merely translated in a different language for a term that denotes a pre-existent concept and prior usage, for example, as if you're translating "prevent" in Greek Harry Potter, to "prevent" in the English version, and not seeing etymology as relevant to the discussion because to you, from the time span in which that specific term has been used then translated, is already known to your satisfaction, so if other words in a different language sound similar, then you can proceed to dismiss them as mere homonyms.

That's fine. I don't accept the premise that it should be limited to that, thus etymology is an important component, because I'm not talking about you merely translating an already known term from an already known text book to be read in a different language. My question has been about the origins of the term, not whether one word sounds similar to other words that's been used in two separate cultures that are merely coincidentally dismissive homonyms.

So yes. I do understand where you're coming from and what you're asserting. Except it's not about text to text translation, but how the term embodying a concept may or may not have seeped into other languages/cultures, even though you believe there's a huge gap, which is where the antediluvian component, for me, comes in, which you a-priori reject.

Frankly, considering the type of back and forth, I thought it would also be clear to you by now as well, that we're not gonna agree, nor convince each other of anything, beyond the "EL" in Hebrew context, at least in context of this current DP-thread.

But as I said, that's cool, too; I'm not in the habit of rehashing irresolvable points of contention that has become irrelevant and have the "same things popping up all over the place."

What would be the point?

C'est la vie.

As such, indeed, this would be my closing comments, now. I respect your depth of knowledge, and your arguments (however I may disagree with conclusions). Enjoyed the convo, regardless.

Thanks, B.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul