 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » adversatives and scope... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter T. Daniels... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
[quote]I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
[/quote]
I wonder what the term for this rhetoric error may be.
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
[/quote]
Does it have a name?
I'd call it "scopal opposition" or "scopal disagreement".
pjk
[quote]It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
[/quote]
Did Douglas Adams write it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:43 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Did Douglas Adams write it?
[/quote]
Nope! (Maybe some day I can revisit the 42 books.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ekkehard Dengler... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joachim Pense wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
I wonder what the term for this rhetoric error may be.
[/quote]
"Conflation"? Cut-and-paste has made it awfully easy to end up with an
inadvertently combine two different things you're thinking about writing ;-)
Regards,
Ekkehard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-11-05, Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
[quote]Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
[/quote]
I agree that it's strange.
[quote]It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
[/quote]
I prefer the last one.
[quote]Discuss.
I wonder what the term for this rhetoric error may be.
"Conflation"? Cut-and-paste has made it awfully easy to end up with an
inadvertently combine two different things you're thinking about writing 
[/quote]
Oh yes. IME, dealing with that kind of error is one of the biggest
benefits from having someone else read your work before you send it
out.
--
Oh, I do most of my quality thinking on the old sandbox. [Bucky Katt] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Adam Funk wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-05, Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
I wonder what the term for this rhetoric error may be.
"Conflation"? Cut-and-paste has made it awfully easy to end up with an
inadvertently combine two different things you're thinking about writing ;-)
Oh yes. IME, dealing with that kind of error is one of the biggest
benefits from having someone else read your work before you send it
out.
[/quote]
In times past, writers enjoyed spending ages polishing their texts. As
in, you know, that was their interest, writing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Herman Rubin... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <fdb2f932-8b85-4766-89a3-ce6dcb8a3e9c at (no spam) o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
[/quote]
What is unusual about this? For one thing, the two versions
you gave only differ in that the second states that they were
a full year apart. The inference between "and" and "but" is
slightly different, but logically they are the same.
In any case, the statement is that these non-twins were sufficiently
similar that one might consider them twins if not knowing otherwise.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin at (no spam) stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 4:22 pm, hru... at (no spam) odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
[quote]In article <fdb2f932-8b85-4766-89a3-ce6dcb8a3... at (no spam) o23g2000vbi.googlegroups..com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
What is unusual about this? For one thing, the two versions
you gave only differ in that the second states that they were
a full year apart. The inference between "and" and "but" is
slightly different, but logically they are the same.
In any case, the statement is that these non-twins were sufficiently
similar that one might consider them twins if not knowing otherwise.
[/quote]
Good grief. You've been desensitized to language by your lifetime of
statistics!
The "only" and the "but" have incompatible presuppositions!
My first version notes that being a year apart is an unusually small
distance between siblings.
My second version notes that it's unusual for siblings who are not
twins to look so much alike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Adam Funk wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-05, Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
Joachim Pense wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
I agree that it's strange.
[/quote]
Yes, but is "strange" a strong enough word? 
[quote]It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
I prefer the last one.
[/quote]
Why would you "prefer" any one of those last two. They are
both egually correct, one with "only" and the other one with "but".
They, of course, have two somewhat different meaning. Which
one you'd use, I guess, depends on what you want to say.
I am an EFL speaker, am I wrong?
pjk
[quote]Discuss.
I wonder what the term for this rhetoric error may be.
"Conflation"? Cut-and-paste has made it awfully easy to end up with an
inadvertently combine two different things you're thinking about writing ;-)
Oh yes. IME, dealing with that kind of error is one of the biggest
benefits from having someone else read your work before you send it
out.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote]Herman Rubin wrote:
In article<9eef42a1-d29b-4608-a85c-2a4662f6f... at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups..com>,
Peter T. Daniels<gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 4:22=A0pm, hru... at (no spam) odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article<fdb2f932-8b85-4766-89a3-ce6dcb8a3... at (no spam) o23g2000vbi.googlegroups> >> .com>,
Peter T. Daniels<gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
What is unusual about this? =A0For one thing, the two versions
you gave only differ in that the second states that they were
a full year apart. =A0The inference between "and" and "but" is
slightly different, but logically they are the same.
In any case, the statement is that these non-twins were sufficiently
similar that one might consider them twins if not knowing otherwise.
Good grief. You've been desensitized to language by your lifetime of
statistics!
More likely decades of using logic. The additional inferences
you make are not universal; this attempt to get these "hidden
significances" is what makes languages UNfit.
'Logic' is an attempt to analyze utterances, but it is very limited in
the kinds of utterances and depth of analysis. Please don't make the
inference that because language is more complex than logic can analyze,
then language is 'unfit'. Rather, logic is unfit but for a very small
subset of language.-
[/quote]
And that's why Mr. Spock is so often so unintentionally funny. (I
mean, the _character_ didn't intend to be funny. His _writers_ did.)
I never watched any other version of ST, so I don't know whether the
android character (Data?) also spoke "logically." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand... at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]In article
a68b2a4e-8701-4139-8654-10e427a35... at (no spam) e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, Ant nio Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In
article<9eef42a1-d29b-4608-a85c-2a4662f6f... at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels<gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 4:22=A0pm, hru... at (no spam) odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In
article<fdb2f932-8b85-4766-89a3-ce6dcb8a3... at (no spam) o23g2000vbi.googlegroups> > > >> .com>,
Peter T. Daniels<gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
What is unusual about this? =A0For one thing, the two versions
you gave only differ in that the second states that they were
a full year apart. =A0The inference between "and" and "but" is
slightly different, but logically they are the same.
In any case, the statement is that these non-twins were sufficiently
similar that one might consider them twins if not knowing otherwise.
Good grief. You've been desensitized to language by your lifetime of
statistics!
More likely decades of using logic. The additional inferences
you make are not universal; this attempt to get these "hidden
significances" is what makes languages UNfit.
'Logic' is an attempt to analyze utterances, but it is very limited in
the kinds of utterances and depth of analysis. Please don't make the
inference that because language is more complex than logic can analyze,
then language is 'unfit'. Rather, logic is unfit but for a very small
subset of language.-
And that's why Mr. Spock is so often so unintentionally funny. (I
mean, the _character_ didn't intend to be funny. His _writers_ did.)
I never watched any other version of ST, so I don't know whether the
android character (Data?) also spoke "logically."
Data did often show a similar lack of awareness of some pretty basic
pragmatics. He also (inexplicably, given how trivial the rules are)
had no ability to form contractions. This was explicitly noted a few
times and was even a plot point in one story.
[/quote]
Yet HAL, built centuries earlier, didn't have the slightest problem
with the most nuanced aspects of human speech. Did they forget how to
do industrial espionage in the AI industry in the 21st century? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Herman Rubin... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <9eef42a1-d29b-4608-a85c-2a4662f6fe25 at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 4:22=A0pm, hru... at (no spam) odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article <fdb2f932-8b85-4766-89a3-ce6dcb8a3... at (no spam) o23g2000vbi.googlegroups=
.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
What is unusual about this? =A0For one thing, the two versions
you gave only differ in that the second states that they were
a full year apart. =A0The inference between "and" and "but" is
slightly different, but logically they are the same.
In any case, the statement is that these non-twins were sufficiently
similar that one might consider them twins if not knowing otherwise.
Good grief. You've been desensitized to language by your lifetime of
statistics!
[/quote]
More likely decades of using logic. The additional inferences
you make are not universal; this attempt to get these "hidden
significances" is what makes languages UNfit.
[quote]The "only" and the "but" have incompatible presuppositions!
My first version notes that being a year apart is an unusually small
distance between siblings.
My second version notes that it's unusual for siblings who are not
twins to look so much alike.
[/quote]
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin at (no spam) stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Herman Rubin wrote:
[quote]In article<9eef42a1-d29b-4608-a85c-2a4662f6fe25 at (no spam) r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 4:22=A0pm, hru... at (no spam) odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
In article<fdb2f932-8b85-4766-89a3-ce6dcb8a3... at (no spam) o23g2000vbi.googlegroups=
.com>,
Peter T. Daniels<gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
It would make perfect sense as either of these:
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
Discuss.
What is unusual about this? =A0For one thing, the two versions
you gave only differ in that the second states that they were
a full year apart. =A0The inference between "and" and "but" is
slightly different, but logically they are the same.
In any case, the statement is that these non-twins were sufficiently
similar that one might consider them twins if not knowing otherwise.
Good grief. You've been desensitized to language by your lifetime of
statistics!
More likely decades of using logic. The additional inferences
you make are not universal; this attempt to get these "hidden
significances" is what makes languages UNfit.
[/quote]
'Logic' is an attempt to analyze utterances, but it is very limited in
the kinds of utterances and depth of analysis. Please don't make the
inference that because language is more complex than logic can analyze,
then language is 'unfit'. Rather, logic is unfit but for a very small
subset of language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:13 am
|
|