Lilwik wrote:It's not clear that you are right about [the definition of forswear]. To me it looks like the number one definition of "forswear" is "to reject or renounce under oath: to forswear an injurious habit." To me, that looks like she is saying "Can you speak of what we forswore to speak of?" which should mean that they rejected or renounced speaking of it under oath. None of the definitions that I see have "forswear" meaning what you claim it means.
Well, look at it this way: Is talking about Charlie "an injurious habit"? Only if you consider that Charlie might try to shorten your lifespan for doing so, and that's also not in the context. No, it is clear that to speak of an oath they made but have not yet broken that the correct terminology is "swore" and not "forswore."
You can forwear (commonly phrased "swear off", if that helps the context) cigarette smoking;
Look at the #3 and #4 definitions for clearer examples:
3. to perjure (oneself).
4. to swear falsely; commit perjury.
Look up "forsworn" for a better understanding of the word. You'll find in most online dictionaries something about breaking a vow or promise. And yes, the etymology of the word does indicate that it was used incorrectly in the context.
Kreistor wrote:Interesting how Lipkin took you down on a definition. Isn't it?
It would be interesting, if he was correct. But he is not.
What is interesting is you, again hauling anything and everything into a conversation, no matter how irrelevant to the subject at hand, in an effort to muddy the waters and obscure your own errors. You didn't even look up the word, did you? You were so tickled to have some straw to grasp at that you decided that one person gainsaying me had to mean that I was not only wrong about that topic, but the topic we were discussing as well. You are pathetic!
No matter were I wrong about a dozen other things in a dozen other conversations, that doesn't make you right in our conversation. But you'd like to believe that it has some significance. I'd cite the logical fallacy you have committed, but that would only give you liberty to prattle on about the fallacy and the myriad ways you will
deny having committed it, rather than the subject at hand.
Kreistor wrote:“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
*golf clap* I believe I paraphrased Wanda Gershwitz regarding you once before: "Apes may quote definitions, they just don't understand them." You've managed to correctly cut and paste the definition of Occam's Razor, and many congratulations on your grade school level computer skills. You just cannot comprehend the words you have copied.
However, a 50% score isn't very impressive, as you also managed to mis-attribute Lilwik's words. So you have an overall failing grade. Try to do better.
Not to be multiplied beyond necessity: Put into an example that you might
understand, this means that when one reads an exchange between two characters concerning a promise made to not speak of certain matters that one does not
therefore decide, as you have done, invent out of whole cloth and therefore "multiply beyond necessity" some fantasy that one of those characters is a long time mole of some third character. One does not
therefore decide that canon examples of "thinkamancy tapping, hacking, or cracking" should be put aside in favor of one's invented mole fantasy. Do not multiply beyond necessity. Don't make shit up.
I hope that this school lesson will sink in, and may it serve you well as you continue on in your life.
Zeku wrote:why are there so many arguments about the meanings of words, or attacks upon one possible interpretation of a person's words
Well, for my part, Zeku, it didn't start out as an argument. I was simply trying to be a helpful reader and point out to the author that he had made an incorrect word choice for the context.
Lilwik was the only one who disagreed (Kreistor doesn't count here, as in most things), but he is mistaken.