Oh No

When I was "at university" many years ago I talked a big game about moving to Canada after graduation and learning their French and disappearing in the north – mainly egged on by this siren. How easy it is to pretend moving to another land is as easy as going to the pictures: first of all the Canadian immigration people aren't crazy about immigrants who don't have a job set up when they enter the country, & I'm not even certain that the lumberjacks or the all-beaver hockey team "The Maple Syrups" are hiring.

If you don't have a job you have to be able to support yourself some other way, and so far it's not looking too hot in that dept. If I ever get around to publifying my next little nothing, entitled "XX XXXXX XXX XXX" then all my dreams will come true, just like last time, as far as moving or something is concerned.

I also looked into applying to grad school, where if a non-citizen gets a degree they get to be a permanent resident, but there aren't a ton of schools in Quebec where I might study things in the one true language, aka mine, and I only know how to say "Si vous avez besoin d'aide, dites-moi s'il vous plaît" and how to comprehend "Fille en haut, fille en bas, fille-fille-fille-femme, femme-femme-femme aussi, pis la bottine-tine-tine, le rigolet ha-ha" in French. Plus I waffled between studying folklore and logic, the latter of which isn't even really something you can study by itself it seems, not even in New Jersey/York, let alone some distant arcticalium.

Speaking of states, in the Quileute language of far northwestern Washington state, they have a word for many types of salmon, even the ones you only know about from finding out what they call them in Quileute:

1. sáťs - spring salmon
2. ʔìláḳsi - silver salmon
3. kwáwiya - steelhead salmon
4. yádoḳw - dog salmon
5. kwoťósha - humpback salmon

Don't believe me? Ask Beatrice Black, who will also tell you about canoes.

Anyway you can't just study "logic," and I think literally there is no such thing as a non-armchair doxastic logician. As far as I can tell you have to study something tangential like semantics or linguistics to be a logician:

If I get this question right maybe I can finally fix the graph: 'Which number or numbers from below is validly educted from the sentence "All gorillas are rascals?" Use Euler's circles, and name the type of eduction used in the answer or answers.'

1. "No gorillas are rascals."
2. "No gorillas are non-rascals."
3. "No non-rascals are gorillas."
4. "All rascals are gorillas."
5. "All non-rascals are gorillas."
6. "All non-rascals are non-gorillas."
7. "No non-rascals are non-gorillas."

8. "No non-gorillas aren't un-rascals"