"Troy Steadman" wrote
... and other pure & applied mathematics, and theoretical physics ...
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Ooops - there's that theoretical physics again!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
That'll be because they have no laces ...
"Troy Steadman" wrote
That's because the wife doesn't want me taking her job off her!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
No assumption required :-
We have already determined elsewhere that the bank is in the UK; hence the cheque is written in English. For the islanders to read the amount on the cheque, and hence to accept it, they will need to be able to read English.
Hence, your comment that "Everyone knows the cheque is good", *implies* that they all know English!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
True, and your story would have stacked-up a lot better if you had used 'IOU' or 'beads' etc, rather than the specific financial instrument which you did use.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Why would I write that? Everyone knows that cheques don't need to be written on paper (don't they?) ...
Where do I imply the bank is in the UK? I don't think I did although if you can quote me otherwise I'll happily concede. It doesn't matter where the bank is, or where the island is, or whether its capital city is Toytown (pop: Noddy, Mr Wobbly-Man, Golly and Big Ears).
It it was in the UK it could (presumably) be written like this:
Croeso i'ch safle chi am wybodaeth corfforaethol & atebolrwydd a mwy.
How does being "able to read English" help you with that?
It is only a "financial instrument" because you've chosen to attribute it to a UK Bank and then apply UK law (rather than common sense :) ) to it.
Even that is wrong. My COD defines "paper" as "negotiable documents". Write your cheque on a pig or Mr Wobbly-Man's backside and it becomes, by definition, "paper".
I very much doubt thats the only definition of 'paper' in your COD. If it is, I suggest you take it back and ask for a refund. ALternatively, you could try reading the book 'English as She is Written' which just shows that you cant do reverse translations and expect to get sense.
Are you saying cheques written on pigs are not "negotiable documents"? Or are you saying "paper" is not another word for (more fully): "negotiable documents, e.g. bills of exchange".
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Look up! Check where you posted this story -- UK.finance -- hence the implication is there.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
I await your concession.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
What sort of rubbish is that meant to be? ;-)
"Troy Steadman" wrote
No, it's because *you* chose to use the word "cheque", and chose to post the story in a **UK finance** NG ... !
"Troy Steadman" wrote
You don't apply common sense to UK cheques. You apply the law!
"Troy Steadman" wrote
He's presumably simply saying that in the context in which it was being written, the word 'paper' was being used to represent the physical objects that come in thin sheets, which are usually called "paper"...
As the statement was posted in uk.finance I would have thought (by your reasoning) its UK fiscal meaning is implied :)
Cambridge must be many years in the past to judge from your definition, which takes the form:
Paper [are the objects usually called] paper.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
I knew you were going to say that! ;-)
The difference is, of course, that the word "cheque" only has *one* meaning. But, of course, "paper" can have either meaning, even in UK finance terms (the one that it was being used for, or the definition you have given).
"Troy Steadman" wrote
I believe I described the objects rather more than that ...
In message , Troy Steadman writes
No. Your COD would need to have defined paper as 'negotiable items' for the pig to become 'paper' because a pig is not a document.
In any event, in the real story it wasnt a pig. It was a cow.
Thats right, they are negotiable animals, not negotiable documents.
If that's so, I take it back unreservedly, and will go with your characterisation instead. He does have a distinctly autistic tendency to focus on the trees rather than the wood.
I stand corrected. Please see post above.
"John Redman" wrote
There would be no wood there, if it weren't for the trees!
You actually need to consider both the wood *and* the trees.
It's a shame when you can't see the trees for the wood...
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
"Troy Steadman" wrote
"Look"? OK, so I'm using my eyes to do that I suppose...
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Ermmm - if I had a plank in my own eye, I don't think I'd be looking at anything much, least a speck of sawdust in anyone else's eye.
"Troy Steadman" wrote
Is that speck of sawdust meant to be part of the plank, like the trees are part of the wood?
How would that work then, the speck is in my brother's eye but it is *also* part of the plank which is in my eye - so my brother's eye is *inside* my eye?!
If you're going to try analogies, at least get them consistent!
Have you ever read Mr. Logic, in Viz? That's you. You are he.
I cannot imagine the nightmare telling you a joke would be. "An Englishman, an Irishman and a goat go into a pub..."
"Goats aren't allowed in pubs...joke does not compute...malfunction..."
"John Redman" wrote
That's not a very funny joke!
Tim's wife: "Aren't you a *teensie* bit interested to know where I hid your shoe laces?" Tim: "No" Tim's wife: [sexily] "We could make babies?" Tim: "Cessation of corpus luteum activity means a decline in estrogen and progesterone". Tim's wife: [sighs]
A Pakistani, a Blonde and an Irishman go into a pub..
"Whats this, some sort of joke?" says the barman.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required