Conundrum for the literal fundamentalist .....

Originally posted by Coletti
"Can I walk while hitting a golf ball?"

No, you must stand still to hit a gold ball with a club.

"Can I hit a golf ball while walking?"

Yes, if you don't look where you are walking, your foot may hit a ball in play, messing up a game of golf.

And here two different definitions of "hit"

Originally posted by telerion
Uh . . .

Does "eat" mean to consume dinner at the dinner table or does it mean "to consume a light snack"?

Either. It depends on the context of the question.

Originally posted by Coletti
Either. It depends on the context of the question.

Ah, I get it now!

Read while Eating is a Big Meal

Eat while Reading is a small snack.

It all makes sense now.

ES

Originally posted by Coletti
"Can I walk while hitting a golf ball?"

No, you must stand still to hit a gold ball with a club.

"Can I hit a golf ball while walking?"

Yes, if you don't look where you are walking, your foot may hit a ball in play, messing up a game of golf.

What makes you think I ever watch where I am walking? You guys are assuming a lot, and that would have to be done to make the original post 'true'.

ES

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Ah, I get it now!

Read while Eating is a Big Meal

Eat while Reading is a small snack.

It all makes sense now.

ES

The point is that one should not assume that two different questions have the same meaning just because the have the same words. Word order and context can (and often does) change what is meant by each word.

Even two identically worded questions can mean different things if the contexts are dramatically different.

Ironically, Ivanhoe has shown that fundamentalist are not the only ones who can make the error of literalism. Since it appears that the secularist here are making the error in this case.

But I think the error is one of poor reasoning - faulty interpretation.

Originally posted by Coletti
The point is that one should not assume that two different questions have the same meaning just because the have the same words. Word order and context can (and often does) change what is meant by each word.

But there is no context change here. It is the same damn conversation!

Originally posted by Coletti
The point is that one should not assume that two different questions have the same meaning just because the have the same words. Word order and context can (and often does) change what is meant by each word.

Even two identically worded ...[text shortened]... think the error is one of poor reasoning - faulty interpretation.

The young monk asked his superior these 2 questions, how did the superior even know what he meant? I mean, words can mean so many things?! Did he mean 'smoke a cigarette in a smoke house like a salmon'?

Yes, words do mean different things, and if you are going to say yes and no to the EXACT SAME QUESTION you should explain the answer.

It matters not if you say pray or smoke first.... it matters how you understand the question.

The young monk should have said, 'Zwah'?

ES

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If there's not a fixed truth table, the truth of the proposition is not well-defined.

How can you defend the superior as being truthful when you can't even define a formal standard for the truth of his responses?

"X is a prime number."

Does this proposition have a well-defined truth value? According to you - no, because it does not have a fixed truth table.

Now combine it with the statement "X = 3". See what I mean?

In order to create a truth table for WHILE (which, incidentally, is not a conjunction like AND/OR/NOR - but starts off a subordinate clause), one would need:

1. A kind of temporal logic that includes a time element.
2. A way of representing context and literary connotations/implications.

The human reader picks up both these, as well as the irony of the situation, which is why the joke (and it is a joke) works.

The absence of a formal, universal standard of truth does not imply that one cannot determine the truth of the superior's statement in this given context.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But there is no context change here. It is the same damn conversation!

The context is the answers are different.. And the word order has changed.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But there is no context change here. It is the same damn conversation!

You're missing the point - it is the context that gives the term WHILE (when used the second time) its particular connotation of subordination as well as simultaneity. Had the narrative ended at the first reply, this connotation would not have been picked up.

I think I got it!

Always light up before you start praying.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
WHILE (which, incidentally, is not a conjunction like AND/OR/NOR - but starts off a subordinate clause)

I beg to differ. Consult entry 2 for "while" at m-w.com. (Entry 1 is for the noun "while", which is obviously irrelevant here.) Note the part of speech: conjunction. Note that of the three definitions given for this conjunction, 1a, 2b, and 3 all conform well to the situation at hand. Thus, "while" is certainly a conjunction as used by the monk and understood by the superior, although I grant that it is not always a conjunction.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I beg to differ. Consult entry 2 for "while" at m-w.com. (Entry 1 is for the noun "while", which is obviously irrelevant here.) Note the part of speech: conjunction. Note that of the three definitions given for this conjunction, 1a, 2b, and 3 all conform well to the situation at hand. Thus, "while" is certainly a conjunction as used by the monk and understood by the superior, although I grant that it is not always a conjunction.

It is a conjunction that starts off a subordinate clause.

I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this nonsense. I'll be back later tonight. Maybe you will have it figured out by then.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I beg to differ. Consult entry 2 for "while" at m-w.com. (Entry 1 is for the noun "while", which is obviously irrelevant here.) Note the part of speech: conjunction. Note that of the three definitions given for this conjunction, 1a, 2b, and 3 all conform well to the situation at hand. Thus, "while" is certainly a conjunction as used by the monk and understood by the superior, although I grant that it is not always a conjunction.

Sorry - that should've read coordinating conjunction. WHILE is a subordinating conjunction as Coletti correctly points out.