On 1/4/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree. Being "mutually exclusive offices" is either a qualifier
> on offices or a whole (nonseparable) term in and of itself, and does
> not create an implicit definition Speaker ~ Offices.
That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that "A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X" for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
Yeah, to me the 'mutually exclusive offices' states that each is an office.
Thus making Speaker an office.
