14 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMr. Speaker, at this time I would like to reiterate the definition of "untenable" posted previously:
Because, since (1) is the applicable definition in this domain, my maintenance of my position is not impossible. Why not impossible? Because you yourself accuse me of maintaining it. Your accusation about my position implicitly grants that I maintain it, and thus it cannot be impossible to maintain, and thus it does not qualify under (1) as being untenable.
un·ten·a·ble
adj.
1. Being such that defense or maintenance is impossible: an untenable position.
2. Being such that occupation or habitation is impossible: untenable quarters.
I think DoctorScribbles will agree that his position is, in fact, impossible to defend as it seems to consist solely of spite. I think DoctorScribbles will also agree that it is impossible to occupy or to habitate, again as it consists solely of spite.
14 Dec 04
3 edits
Originally posted by PBE6It all depends on how you interpret the OR clause of the definition. If you read it as:
1. Being such that defense or maintenance is impossible: an untenable position.
I think DoctorScribbles will agree that his position is, in fact, impossible to defend as it seems to consist solely of spite.
(defense or maintenance) is impossible
then to me, this is equivalent to:
defense is impossible AND maintenance is impossible
because of the negative notion of impossibility which would distribute over the disjunction as I have described.
Under this interpretation, I refer you to my earlier argument that my position is not untenable by virtue of you already having granted that I do in fact maintain it. Since the maintenance clause of the above conjunction fails, the entire thing fails, and thus the definition does not say that my position is untenable.
However, I will grant that there is an alternate interpreation of the OR clause, namely:
defense is impossible OR maintenance is impossible.
Under this interpretation, you would be correct, because defense of my position is impossible by virtue of the fact that you haven't even specified what position I have to try to defend. But, I believe that this interpretation of the OR clause is not the intended one, for two reasons.
First "is" is the active verb, and it happens to indicate a singular subject. "(defense OR maintenance)" from the first interpretation above is singular. That is, (defense OR maintence) is a single object, having the negative disjunctive properties of the first interpretation above.
Secondly, English provides a convenient word "either", as in "Either defense or maintenance is impossible", to indicate that the two disjuncts are not to be treated as a single entity. Since the author of the definition neglected to use this term for clarification, I assume that he did not intend to give that meaning, because a person writing a dictionary has a sufficient command of the language to know about the availability and applicability of "either."
Therefore, in either case, you have yet to demonstrate by this definition that my position is untenable.
Dr. S