| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » adversatives and scope... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nathan Sanders... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<a68b2a4e-8701-4139-8654-10e427a35a00 at (no spam) e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:16 pm, António 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."
[/quote]
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.
Nathan
--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Adam Funk... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-11-06, PaulJK wrote:
[quote]Adam Funk wrote:
Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
I came across this sentence in a novel, and it seems rather strange:
(1)
"They were only a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
I agree that it's strange.
Yes, but is "strange" a strong enough word? 
[/quote]
I'd call (1) stylistically or perhaps pragmatically wrong, but not
syntactically wrong.
[quote]It would make perfect sense as either of these:
(2)
"They were only a year apart, and they could be taken for twins."
(3)
"They were a year apart, but they could be taken for twins."
I prefer the last one.
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.
[/quote]
I meant that (3) more closely reflects what the author intended by (1)
--- in my humble opinion, of course.
[quote]I am an EFL speaker, am I wrong?
[/quote]
Not at all.
--
Leila: "I don't think he knows."
Agent Rogersz: "Increase the voltage."
Leila: "What if he's innocent?"
Agent Rogersz: "No one is innocent. Proceed" (Cox 1984) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:46 am
|
|