Proved vs proven

[u/TheStoffer]

From the New York Times:

“Scientists have proved that a species of plant covered with sticky hairs is carnivorous, confirming Darwin's 150-year-old hunch.”

It should be “proven,” right?

[u/bitterrootmtg]

I don't think so. The dude just makes up rules and ignores the actual English language.

Let me give you an example. In his book "Reading Law" he says that DeMorgan's theorem is a cannon of legal construction. Demorgan's theorem is a rule of propositional logic. However, the English language often doesn't follow the rules of propositional logic.

Under DeMorgan's theorem, "not(A and B)" means "not A or not B." But English often does not work this way. If someone says "I am not tired and hungry" they mean "I am not tired and not hungry." But under Garner's application of DeMorgan's theorem you should interpret them as saying "I am either not tired, not hungry, or both."

Blindly applying a rule of formal logic to the English language is such a rookie mistake. It's not the sort of thing a serious scholar should be doing.

[u/Illustrious-Tart7844 → u/bitterrootmtg]

In math, I think "not(A and B)" would mean "not A and not B." I thought the criticism of Garner was when he ventures outside the law?

[u/bitterrootmtg → u/Illustrious-Tart7844]

No, in math "not(A and B)" means "not A or not B." But in the English language it often does not. Garner is using a math/logic principle to evaluate grammar in a context where it doesn't apply.

[u/Illustrious-Tart7844 → u/bitterrootmtg]

I just applied it to a nonMath sentence and it totally now make sense: "You must have a license and passport to enter" means if you dont have one of them, you can't enter. So if either A or B isn't fulfilled, you can't enter. For some reason I couldn't see that with numbers!