0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage
Does Bigfoot exist?
Hello,
I am new, so - nice to meet you friends.
Me question (do hope some Brits are here, too, cause I LOVE YOU, people :-)
I am pondering two cleft variants of the clause:
I) Bigfoot possibly exists.
a. one with a finite that- clause:
It is possible THAT Bigfoot exists.
b. one with a nonfinite to- infinitive clause:
It is possible (ZERO) for Bigfoot to exist.
First, are these variants inambiguous vis. will "backformation" of a. & b. always yield I) ?
Second, are these variants semantically equivalent (I am also thinking of their epistemics and the like).
Thank You.
-)
Tom
I am new, so - nice to meet you friends.
Me question (do hope some Brits are here, too, cause I LOVE YOU, people :-)
I am pondering two cleft variants of the clause:
I) Bigfoot possibly exists.
a. one with a finite that- clause:
It is possible THAT Bigfoot exists.
b. one with a nonfinite to- infinitive clause:
It is possible (ZERO) for Bigfoot to exist.
First, are these variants inambiguous vis. will "backformation" of a. & b. always yield I) ?
Second, are these variants semantically equivalent (I am also thinking of their epistemics and the like).
Thank You.
-)
Tom
Top answer
[nq:1]Hello, I am new, so - nice to meet you friends. Me question (do hope some Brits are here, too, ... always yield I) ?
- [nq:1]Hello, I am new, so - nice to meet you friends.
- Me question (do hope some Brits are here, too, ...
- always yield I) ?
- [/nq] The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a).
- It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot could exist.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
[nq:1]Hello, I am new, so - nice to meet you friends. Me question (do hope some Brits are here, too, ... always yield I) ? Second, are these variants semantically equivalent (I am also thinking of their epistemics and the like).[/nq]
The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a). It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot could exist.
Alan Jone
The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a). It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot could exist.
Alan Jone
00
[nq:1]I am pondering two cleft variants of the clause: I) Bigfoot possibly exists. a. one with a finite that- clause: ... always yield I) ? Second, are these variants semantically equivalent (I am also thinking of their epistemics and the like).[/nq]
Usually logical inference (your first question) is independent of semantic meaning (your second meaning). If not necessarily in all logics, it on
Usually logical inference (your first question) is independent of semantic meaning (your second meaning). If not necessarily in all logics, it on
00
[nq:1]The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a). It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot couldexist.[/nq]
My first thought was also that (b) basically just says "Bigfoot could exist" with no definitive does/does not implication.
- Matt
My first thought was also that (b) basically just says "Bigfoot could exist" with no definitive does/does not implication.
- Matt
00
(snip)
[nq:2]I) Bigfoot possibly exists. a. It is possible THAT Bigfoot exists. b. It is possible (ZERO) for Bigfoot to exist.[/nq]
[nq:1]The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a). It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot could exist.[/nq]
What is the meaning of the other two, then?
I mean, what is the semantic difference given the fin
[nq:2]I) Bigfoot possibly exists. a. It is possible THAT Bigfoot exists. b. It is possible (ZERO) for Bigfoot to exist.[/nq]
[nq:1]The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a). It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot could exist.[/nq]
What is the meaning of the other two, then?
I mean, what is the semantic difference given the fin
00
[nq:2]The (b) version doesn't mean the same as (I) or (a). It says, to my (British) mind, that conditions are available in which Bigfoot could[/nq]
[nq:1]exist. My first thought was also that (b) basically just says "Bigfoot could exist" with no definitive does/does not implication.[/nq]
Right. And the other two?
Tom
[nq:1]exist. My first thought was also that (b) basically just says "Bigfoot could exist" with no definitive does/does not implication.[/nq]
Right. And the other two?
Tom
00
[nq:1]Usually logical inference (your first question) is independent of semantic meaning (your second meaning).[/nq]
I see.
[nq:1]If not necessarily in all logics, it only means you should reveal which logic you wish to use.[/nq]
I am not thinking of bringing in modal logic (just yet). Whereas the fact, that it is a necessary prerequisite for achieving disambiguity in NLs is out of que
I see.
[nq:1]If not necessarily in all logics, it only means you should reveal which logic you wish to use.[/nq]
I am not thinking of bringing in modal logic (just yet). Whereas the fact, that it is a necessary prerequisite for achieving disambiguity in NLs is out of que
0
Related Questions