home	Talk Page	Workshop	Userboxes	Contributions	Email

Hello, Nevill Fernando, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions.

I was using "deverbal" to refer to adjectives derived from verbs, which these are (i.e., "lockable" comes from "lock"). See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deverbal#Adjective.

If you would like to discuss this further you are welcome to comment in the discussion on-wiki. I would prefer not to continue the discussion over e-mail. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to continue a discussion from the Language Reference Desk with me, please continue the discussion on-wiki (either at WP:RD/L or at my talk page) rather than by sending e-mail. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I received your email suggesting I sound like the eminent philosopher Ayer. I am flattered. In that instance, however, I was simply trying to provide a sourced alternate opinion to that provided by previous posters. I would add that I agree with you. Further, a priori knowledge is a direct opposite of a posteriori knowledge and in turn, a posteriori is synonymous with empirical --Senra (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have replied to my above via email. Is there a reason why you prefer communicating using email rather than maintaining such conversations on-wiki? Unless you have a reason, for example accessibility, I would prefer all conversations to remain on-wiki.

It seems I can reproduce the relevant contents of your email here without contravening the foundation's wmf:Privacy policy providing I redact your email address thus:

Hi. On the User talk:Nevill Fernando#Language desk, 'a posteriori is synonymous with empirical' sounds good to me in the context of a priori but 'a priori knowledge is a direct opposite of a posteriori knowledge' sounds very arbitrary to me with the context of a priori in the sense whether they are really opposite or not. Anyway, i would say that the first empirical proposition is powerfull statement among other posts.

— Nevill Fernando (talk · contribs)

In reply, consider these two Oxford English Dictionary definitions ...

• "a priori: A phrase used to characterize reasoning or arguing from causes to effects, from abstract notions to their conditions or consequences, from propositions or assumed axioms (and not from experience); deductive; deductively." quoted from "a priori". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) (subscription required) and see also the free Merriam-Webster:a priori
• "a posteriori: A phrase used to characterize reasoning or arguing from effects to causes, from experience and not from axioms; empirical, inductive; inductively." quoted from "a posteriori". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) (subscription required) and see also the free Merriam-Webster:a posteriori

My emphasis in both cases. Thus the phrase from causes to effects appears to me to be directly opposite the phrase from effects to causes. Q.E.D.?

--Senra (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]