Proof of pudding or other

[sagehen]

>At 4:49 PM -0400 7/18/07, sagehen wrote:
>>If  "proof" is thought of as a process, a test, and not just as the
>>completed demonstration,  through testing, of the truth of something,
>>odd-seeming  expressions like "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"
>
>Why is that one odd?  It strikes me as entirely sensible. The only
>version I find opaque is "the proof is in the pudding".  But I agree
>that "proof" here is close to "test" (see below).
>
>>or "the exception that proves the rule" become sensible.  "The test of the
>>pudding is in the eating "........   "the exception that tests the rule."
>>AM
>>
>We've discussed the exception that proves the rule here in the past.
>My understanding (now ratified by Cecil Adams at Straight Dope and
>Michael Quinion at Worldwidewords.com) is that "prove" here did *not*
>originally mean 'test' but 'prove', as in 'prove the existence of'.
>Here's Michael's explanation (World Wide Words -- 07 Sep 02), on
>which I cannot improve (and which touches on pudding along the way):
>
>It has often been suggested in reference works that "prove" here is
>really being used in the sense of "test" (as it does in terms like
>"proving ground" or "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", or
>in the printer's proof, which is a test page run off to see that
>all is correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea
>behind the saying is that the presence of what looks like an
>exception tests whether a rule is really valid or not. If you
>cannot reconcile the supposed exception with the rule, there must
>indeed be something wrong with the rule. The expression is indeed
>used in this sense, but that's not where it comes from or what it
>strictly means.
>
>The problem with that attempted explanation is that those putting
>it forward have picked on the wrong word to challenge. It's not a
>false sense of "proof" that causes the problem, but "exception". We
>think of it as meaning some case that doesn't follow the rule,
>whereas the original sense was of someone or something that is
>being granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise
>applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin
>legal principle: "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis",
>which may be translated as "the exception confirms the rule in the
>cases not excepted".
>
>Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice
>which says "Parking prohibited on Sundays". You may reasonably
>infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of
>the week. A sign on a museum door which says "Entry free today"
>leads logically to the implication that entry is not free on other
>days (unless it's a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that
>some stores have, but let's not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave
>an example from his wartime experience: "Special leave is given for
>men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm", which implies a rule
>that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So,
>in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of
>an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.
>====================
>LH
>
 ~~~~~~~~~~
Yup.  Makes sense to me.  I didn't realize that my little lightbulb here
had a history of mistaken interpretation.

As for the pudding, my problem with the expression  lay in its not saying
what was proved.....that it existed?  Thinking of it as testing somehow
made more sense to me.
(The doubly odd "proof is in the pudding"  made me think of the practice of
putting some prize, like a ring, in one part of a pudding & seeing who got
it.)
AM

~@:>   ~@:>   ~@:>   ~@:>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org