enough and as good

[athena3rm]

What's the difference between the two? I'm italian, and I've always interpretate them with the same way, but actually I found:

there is "enought and as good" of...

It is an idiomatic?
Thank you all!

ps. I don't know if it is the right place to post it, sorry if I should have posted it in the eng-it forum!

 

[lsp]

The context of how you found it would be enormously helpful in order to answer you correctly. "... enough (no final 't') and as good" is not an idiomatic expression that exists in the language (and it seems odd that it would be followed by "of").

 

[la reine victoria]

What's the difference between the two? I'm italian, and I've always interpretate them with the same way, but actually I found:

there is "enought and as good" of...

It is an idiomatic?
Thank you all!

ps. I don't know if it is the right place to post it, sorry if I should have posted it in the eng-it forum!

Hello Athena3rm,

You are in the right forum.

Your question is slightly ambiguous, but I gather you want to know the difference between "enough" and "as good of as".

But then you go on to ask "Is it idiomatic?" - "there is enough and as good of."

Please can you make your question a little clearer?

Thank you.


LRV

 

[athena3rm]

ok, sorry, I'll try to explain it better:
I've always thought that enough and as good meant the same. but I found this phrase:


In Lockean thought, the moral claim is limited to the situation in which there is ‘‘enough and as good’’ of the natural endowment so that others can also mix their labor with it.

Later, in the text, it is called

enough-and-as-good dilemma.

I cannot understand the difference between the two terms, so I was wondering if is an idiomatic form...

 

[panjandrum]

There is clearly something in philosophical dissertation called the enough-and-as-good dilemma. It is likely that this bears little relationship to the meaning we normal mortals would associate with the words. So far, I haven't found a sentence containing this phrase that I can understand (apart from the one I just wrote up above).

Here we go. It's inspired guess time, based on a comprehensive sample of one.

For example, a farmer claimed land because of his

investment in clearing it, draining it, and rendering it fit for cultivation.
So, what happens when there is no more land to clear? In
Lockean thought, the moral claim is limited to the situation in which
there is ‘‘enough and as good’’ of the natural endowment so that
others can also mix their labor with it. If the natural resource has​

been entirely taken, Lockeans have a problem.

From this paragraph I consider that if there is "enough and as good" of land then there is enough land to go around and that all of the land is of the same quality. How that turns into a dilemma, and what this has to do with intellectual property rights I'll leave for those who are really interested to find out for themselves, HERE.​

Apparently, John Locke claimed that there was nothing reprehensible about appropropriation of natural resources, land, whatever by someone provided that he left enough of it for the rest of us and the stuff that he left was as good as the stuff that he took to himself.

 

[maxiogee]

My late father was overly fond of saying: "Enough is as good as a feast!"
We took it to be a quotation but I never found out whom he thought he was quoting.

 

[athena3rm]

Thank you so much, Panjandrum!