Who wants to help me practice deconstructionism?

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.

Time flies like an arrow.

Can’t claim credit for that one. I remember reading it as an instance of a grammatical English sentence that absolutely buffaloed an automatic translator.

@crisw, oh lawd, I was discussing this sentence over dinner earlier.

This looks like a fun question….

I’ll start with an easy one:

“You only possess that which you cannot lose in a shipwreck.”
-El Ghazali

Try looking up Sufi quotes for some good material. Part of Sufism is that their mantras had numerous layers of meaning that had to be interpreted to become a Sufi master.

OK, not very good at this but here goes. I will outline my answers.

@crisw Your first response was not a quote or an opinion, but here’s how I would interpret it:
1. What is a buffalo?
—>Having fur? Mammoths have fur. What’s the difference? (Might analogize/distinguish if I have time)
—>Having horns? Oxen have horns. What’s the difference? (Might analogize/distinguish if I have time)
...
If I am taking an undergrad humanities class Therefore, buffalo would be a social construct.
BUT…I am not, so I continue

2. Significance of the phrase.
One interp: 8 buffalos (But that is too simplistic)
Maybe Big B buffalos are adult and small B buffalos are young. (looking at the exact syntax)

Now all those are just based on a textual read.

Purposive interpretation:
What is the purpose of this phrase?
1. Maybe the @crisw is trying to warn me of the buffalo.
2. Maybe a poem
3. Maybe a park sign

Look at:
1. the context of the writing
2. the history of the writing (when has a similar phrase appeared)
3. the intent of the writer (if it can be found)

Whew…

Not exactly deconstructionism. More like interpretation. Maybe I should rephrase my Q.

BTW, the class this is for is a class involving statutory (i.e. legislation) interpretation. I need to get used to the different approaches to doing that.

Whoa.

Fruit flies like a banana.
Pedro beats his donkey, and Juan does too.
Every farmer beats his donkey, and Juan does too.

@ratboy Addressing the third one.

Since my class involves statutory interpretation, I assume that the rule is “Every farmer beats his donkey.” and Juan is merely following the rule.

The word “farmer” here is a prime target for interpretation. Who is a farmer? What if Juan is not a farmer but rather a rancher? Then, would Juan have to beat his donkey? Is there even a factual (or legal) difference between a farmer and a rancher in this case? Likely the statute would have a definition section.

If not, then I need to look at the purpose and context of the statute. Is it included in a law specifically regulating farmers receiving government subsidies? Or is it in a law that regulates farmers in general?

“Beat” is debatable based on the exact activity needed to qualify as “beating” (beat with what? hands? stick? something else?) and the severity of said activity (hit lightly? hit hard enough to cripple? to kill?).

The word “donkey” is another word for debate. If Juan owns a mule, which is a cross between a horse and a donkey, does Juan have to beat the mule?

All this shows is that the rule is ambiguous (as is the case with most statutes) and has inherent loopholes and blind spots.

I did not ignore all the other examples. I am just analyzing the statements in a random order

I am just interpreting the rule here. Obviously, on an actual exam, I would also have to address substantive issues like the Constitutionality of a certain rule, etc. but that’s not what I want to focus on here.

If Juan is an additional donkey beater, it seems that he is outside the class of farmers. Otherwise we should see that he beats his donkey as do other farmers. So it seems safe to conclude that he is not a farmer and therefore that any rules pertaining to farmers do not apply to him.

Here, I’ll offer you an unequivocal statement of position for your exercise:

There’s always room for one more turkey in the refrigerator.

Things are always darkest before the dawn.

Are you talking about the idea of deconstructionism as defined by Jacques Derrida?