Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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 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.
Happy <whatever it is you're off to do>!
And when you're back, perhaps you'll have figured out that natural language statements (especially as part of a narrative) do not directly translate into logical statements.
Originally posted by ivanhoe Any literal fundamentalist ..... as you know there are also secular literal fundamentalists ...... check out this thread .... interesting food for psychologists, logicians and other stand-up comedians ..... 😀 😛
I think this went way above the secular heads here. 😀
Originally posted by lucifershammer Sorry - that should've read coordinating conjunction. WHILE is a subordinating conjunction as Coletti correctly points out.
It is a coordinating conjuction as used by the monk.
Refer to this: http://grammar.uoregon.edu/conjunctions/coordinating.html
"While is a coordinating conjunction when its meaning is during the time that or throughout the time that."
This reference suggests that the monk should have used "although" if he intended subordination. But then ivanhoe's joke is no longer funny, is it? The entirety of the humor is based on an abuse of language. It's nonsense and there's nothing to be learned from it, other than that some people have no qualms about abusing language when it suits them.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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.
I'm going outside to teach a rock how to speak piglatin. At least that would be time well spent.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Happy <whatever it is you're off to do>!
And when you're back, perhaps you'll have figured out that natural language statements (especially as part of a narrative) do not directly translate into logical statements.
I don't assert that they always do. I do, however, assert that I am entitled to make them confrom to a logical form if you are going to assert that they have truth values, which you have done by saying that the monk didn't lie.
Originally posted by Nordlys Sounds like you might have severe problems with coordination of different movements. I suggest you see a neurologist. 😛
Groan, that is all I need now is someone flipping a flop on me. Please don't turn my awsome digs on me...
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I don't assert that they always do. I do, however, assert that I am entitled to make them confrom to a logical form if you are going to assert that they have truth values, which you have done by saying that the monk didn't lie.
As I mentioned before, a logical form for a subordinating conjunction like WHILE will necessarily need to take into account the temporal and situational context of the statement. Even if it does, it may still not account for various other ambiguities of language and other aspects of hermeneutics that a human reader will apply to the situation. Nevertheless, the difficulty in formulating a formal system or operation to find out the truth value of the statement does not mean that no such system exists, or that the truth value cannot be found.
I think, for instance, that the following statement is true:
"I love my mother."
What formal system would you devise to find out this truth value?
Conundrum for the literal fundamentalist .....
17 May '05 18:22
Back to Top