|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bicho the Inhaler
Daedalian Member
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:39 pm Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
extro, that's what I think, as well. There are different ways to define "implicit", some of which are interesting and relevant, and others of which are not worthy of more than a mention, if that.
| Dan wrote: |
| Ah, I see now that this is where what Bicho was talking about comes in, but I would hardly call this syntactic property "superficial" or "inane". It is a part of our language's deep-structure syntax. |
What is not superficial about the distinction between "Tom is big" and "Tom is strong" as implied by the sentence "Tom is big and strong"? And if it isn't inane, there must be something interesting to say about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:05 am Post subject: 42 |
|
|
The only thing I can think of that is not inane, is if you're saying it like subliminal man.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:38 am Post subject: 43 |
|
|
The sentence structure has a piece of implied information in it that is not immediately obvious from simply reading/saying the sentence "Tom is big and strong". I find that piece of structure interesting, and though it might be simple, it is not necessarily obvious, so I don't think it's inane.
And is it subliminal? It might actually be so, depending on what you believe about one's native language and how the brain works (I'm not proposing I beleive this, I'm just saying one could make a case for it).
_________________
Rokk. uuddlrlrbastart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:46 am Post subject: 44 |
|
|
| Dan wrote: |
| The sentence structure has a piece of implied information in it that is not immediately obvious from simply reading/saying the sentence "Tom is big and strong". |
It must not be obvious, because I can't see it at all. I mean, I can see it implies Tom is big, and that it implies Tom is strong, but any 4 year old would grasp that without thinking. That much is obvious immediately, if not sooner. So what am I missing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:41 pm Post subject: 45 |
|
|
I might be utterly wrong here, but why can't "big and strong" represent a predicate "as is"? Does it have to be atomic?
In fact, i don't care if there is no thing that is "electronic and rich", the concept is still valid in my mind. In terms of sets, the "electronic" and "rich" sets define (TTBOMK) four other sets, one of which is their intersection. And since i don't see why we would need a new word for it, i would use the conjuction of the two properties.
From this point of view, the sentence is "x is P". No implicitness here...
New idea: If the sentence were "The bald skinny guy over there is a teacher", i would have no hesitation to put it into the same "x is P" category, although the 'x' would not be atomic. Or would it?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tahnan
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: 46 |
|
|
| Dan wrote: |
| You can't phrase anything in the English language with logic. |
Horsehockey. I refer the reader to Richard Montague's "The Proper Treatment of Quantifiers in English" and the 30-odd years of research that followed.
Incidentally, Samadhi, your teacher is an i...no, no, I think your teacher is using words in ways that all of us are wholly unaccustomed. And I'm not really sure what point he's making with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
