|
|
|
|
|
|
by jjtheblunt
1044 days ago
|
|
|
https://nosweatshakespeare.com/merchant-venice-play/text-act... but supposedly the original said glistens rather than glitters. It's interesting that Shakespeare also got DeMorgan's predicate logic and quantifiers mixed up, if Shakespeare is still conjectured to be Francis Bacon. I don't remember if this pattern like "All that X is not Y" for "Not all X is Y" sounded wrong to me before i had seen predicate calculus/logic and the quantifiers and DeMorgan. |
|
|
FWIW: By the time I was in high school, I know I understood DeMorgan's laws because I used them in programming. (I don't remember ever struggling with distribution of Boolean operators, or being taught those rules.) But I didn't actually learn the name 'DeMorgan' until college.
But that still kinda leaves the real question open! Was I primed to care about this distinction by my atypical engagement with contexts where it really matters? Or was I drawn to those contexts because distinctions like that one are naturally highly salient for me?
I suspect it's a mix of both, and that they're mutually reinforcing.
Maybe some day a linguist will happen upon this thread and start looking at scopal ambiguity and isomorphism among adults in specific professions, and turn up something interesting. :)