Originally posted by lucifershammer 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.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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 the ...[text shortened]... d from it, other than that some people have no qualms about abusing language when it suits them.
Nevertheless, the reference does not say it is WRONG to use while to mean although. It is this ambiguity in the above statement that gives it humour.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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.
Get a sense of humour, mate. Almost all verbal humour (as opposed to situational humour) depends on some ambiguity in words and meaning. You don't have to fight us Christians on everything, you know.
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.
DoctorS: "I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this nonsense."
Originally posted by ivanhoe Ever seen a thread such as this ? ..... DoctorScribbles loosing his cool and all ?
I think this may be the funniest thread EVER at RHP. Well done, Ivanhoe; poor DoctorScribbles is starting to sound like one of Harry Mudd's robots - "ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL!"
Originally posted by lucifershammer "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 ...[text shortened]... ot imply that one cannot determine the truth of the superior's statement in this given context.
You don't need a 'temporal logic' (whatever that means, exactly), in order to represent the logical structure of the two original claims. All you need to do is make explicit the equivocation between two different senses of the terms 'praying' and 'smoking'.
The two senses of the two terms are obvious (or should be, to a native English speaker). They are accurately characterized by Coletti's analogy with the terms 'eating' and 'reading'.
Originally posted by bbarr The two senses of the two terms are obvious (or should be, to a native English speaker). They are accurately characterized by Coletti's analogy with the terms 'eating' and 'reading'.
I'm curious to hear whether DoctorScribbles agrees with you on this.
Originally posted by no1marauder I think this may be the funniest thread EVER at RHP. Well done, Ivanhoe; poor DoctorScribbles is starting to sound like one of Harry Mudd's robots - "ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL!"
17 May '05 18:49
Conundrum for the literal fundamentalist .....
Back to Top