tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post7528561874591549609..comments2023-08-16T08:31:36.656-04:00Comments on A Linguist Goes to Law School: "If"Urihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17062820375737847282noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post-90006176895221687532012-05-31T09:43:20.111-04:002012-05-31T09:43:20.111-04:00I know this is a really old post, but I just wante...I know this is a really old post, but I just wanted to mention I think there's a way of looking at the sentence in which Skinner's definition works - <br /><br />[Even] in the event that justice has anything to do with a disobedient whale, it has little to do with a disobedient whale<br /><br />or<br /><br />[Even] on the condition that justice has anything to do with a disobedient whale, it has little to do with a disobedient whaleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post-67488430355226519672012-04-20T19:14:33.708-04:002012-04-20T19:14:33.708-04:00People, o my what a wonderful site you have here. ...People, o my what a wonderful site you have here. Interesting reading funny photos and lots of content for your reader.price per head servicehttp://www.priceperheadcostarica.com/betting-software-services/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post-8475375013941719002008-07-06T17:39:00.000-04:002008-07-06T17:39:00.000-04:00Ah, okay. I guess linguists usually reserve "conju...Ah, okay. I guess linguists usually reserve "conjunction" for the traditional "coordinating conjunction" and call "subordinating conjunctions" "complementizers."Urihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062820375737847282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post-4866584409893282472008-05-18T00:51:00.000-04:002008-05-18T00:51:00.000-04:00In the traditional terminology, "if" is classed as...In the traditional terminology, "if" is classed as a subordinating conjunction like "because" or "when", not a co-ordinating conjunction like "and" or "but", for precisely the reasons you give.Gheufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05865510365002907078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post-59819950583636412862008-04-24T09:16:00.000-04:002008-04-24T09:16:00.000-04:00Thanks for your comment, Alexis. Your point about ...Thanks for your comment, Alexis. Your point about the substitution test is well-taken, and I think you're correct. I can only defend my attempt to use the substitution test by saying that there's got to be *some* way of testing informal definitions if we're going to take them to be informative. If it's not the substitution test, it should be something else. <BR/><BR/>Regarding your point on subsets: I agree with you that the two sets are identical; that is, that the set of situations in which justice has anything to do with a disobedient whale (call it set A) is identical to the set of situations in which it has little to do with it (call it set B). But I think that this is half due to the semantics of "if" and half due to the fact that "little" entails "anything", which is orthogonal to the discussion of "if". <BR/><BR/>"if" ensures that A is a subset of B. The fact that "little" is a subset of "anything", when the latter is used as an existential, guarantees that B is a subset of A. <BR/>The result is that A = B in his particular case.Urihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062820375737847282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6842538379870316388.post-90031660121619971332008-04-21T17:44:00.000-04:002008-04-21T17:44:00.000-04:00I've read this post several times now and enjoyed ...I've read this post several times now and enjoyed it, but I'm still not clear on exactly what your semantic objection is to the definition of "if" as meaning "in the event that" or "on the condition that". The fact that a word has a definition N doesn't mean that that word can always be directly string-replaced by N in every usage. When you unpack Skinner's sentence to reach <BR/><BR/>"If justice has anything to do with a disobedient whale, it has little to do with it"<BR/><BR/>you can easily replace "if" by "in the event that", showing that the semantics of "if" in "little if anything" are indeed exactly as defined, even though the expression itself doesn't permit the paraphrase.<BR/><BR/>The quantificational analysis doesn't seem to me to add anything to this. I may not be understanding correctly what your point in doing it was, though. <BR/><BR/>It also seems odd to say "the set of situations in which justice has anything to do with a disobedient whale is a subset of the set of situations in which justice has little to do with a disobedient whale" when I think what the sentence is asserting is something more particular, namely that the set of situations in which justice has anything to do with a disobedient whale is identical to the set of situations in which it has little to do with it. So it's a subset (sets being subsets of themselves), but why not just say it's the same set?Alexishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15019989788721036349noreply@blogger.com