Discussion:
what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness
Add Reply
Lazypierrot
2020-01-08 12:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.


a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.

b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.


Cordially,

LP
Spains Harden
2020-01-08 12:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Yes, they have the same meaning. I'd have put speech-marks around the
second "consciousness".
Lazypierrot
2020-01-08 13:35:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Yes, they have the same meaning. I'd have put speech-marks around the
second "consciousness".
I also would like to know whether "what we mean" in the above sentences comes
from the question "what do we mean?", or rather from "the things that we mean."

Cordially,

LP
Spains Harden
2020-01-08 15:31:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Yes, they have the same meaning. I'd have put speech-marks around the
second "consciousness".
I also would like to know whether "what we mean" in the above sentences comes
from the question "what do we mean?", or rather from "the things that we mean."
In speech, with the "*we*" heavily emphasised, it could mean "what do
*we* mean?" In all other cases "the things that we mean".
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-08 16:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Yes, they have the same meaning. I'd have put speech-marks around the
second "consciousness".
I also would like to know whether "what we mean" in the above sentences comes
from the question "what do we mean?", or rather from "the things that we mean."
One uses a pronoun, one uses a noun. What difference do you think there is?
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-08 16:44:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
"carries a lot of different" is very bad for "has."

The order of the first two clauses depends on the point your are making
and what has come before. "Old information" comes earlier in the sentence.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-08 19:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
Not necessarily.
Post by Lazypierrot
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Cordially,
LP
a) can mean:
It is worth clarifying NOW what we mean IN GENERAL when we talk
about insect consciousness, since the term consciousness carries a
lot of different meanings.

b) implies simultaneousness between the clarifying and the talking.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-08 20:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
Not necessarily.
Post by Lazypierrot
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Cordially,
LP
It is worth clarifying NOW what we mean IN GENERAL when we talk
about insect consciousness, since the term consciousness carries a
lot of different meanings.
The "now" and "in general" have nothing to do with the syntax but
refer to the meaning of "clarify," and apply equally to (b).
Post by b***@aol.com
b) implies simultaneousness between the clarifying and the talking.
No, it doesn't. Unless something in the context suggests such an
interpretation. As I noted in my reply.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-08 20:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same meaining.
Not necessarily.
Post by Lazypierrot
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
Cordially,
LP
It is worth clarifying NOW what we mean IN GENERAL when we talk
about insect consciousness, since the term consciousness carries a
lot of different meanings.
The "now" and "in general" have nothing to do with the syntax but
refer to the meaning of "clarify," and apply equally to (b).
No, for b) to have the meaning of a) I mentioned above, the wording
should be of e.g. "When it comes to insect consciousness ...", instead
of "When we talk about insect consciousness ...", which says just what
it means.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
b) implies simultaneousness between the clarifying and the talking.
No, it doesn't. Unless something in the context suggests such an
interpretation. As I noted in my reply.
Wrong, see above.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-08 21:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same
meaining.
Not necessarily.
Post by Lazypierrot
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
It is worth clarifying NOW what we mean IN GENERAL when we talk
about insect consciousness, since the term consciousness carries a
lot of different meanings.
The "now" and "in general" have nothing to do with the syntax but
refer to the meaning of "clarify," and apply equally to (b).
No, for b) to have the meaning of a) I mentioned above, the wording
should be of e.g. "When it comes to insect consciousness ...", instead
of "When we talk about insect consciousness ...", which says just what
it means.
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier) Stop Telling
Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
b) implies simultaneousness between the clarifying and the talking.
No, it doesn't. Unless something in the context suggests such an
interpretation. As I noted in my reply.
Wrong, see above.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-09 00:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Lazypierrot
I would like to know if the following sentences a) and b) have the same
meaining.
Not necessarily.
Post by Lazypierrot
a) It is worth clarifying what we mean when we talk about insect consciousness,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
b) When we talk about insect consciousness, it is worth clarifying what we mean,
since the term consciousness carries a lot of different meanings.
It is worth clarifying NOW what we mean IN GENERAL when we talk
about insect consciousness, since the term consciousness carries a
lot of different meanings.
The "now" and "in general" have nothing to do with the syntax but
refer to the meaning of "clarify," and apply equally to (b).
No, for b) to have the meaning of a) I mentioned above, the wording
should be of e.g. "When it comes to insect consciousness ...", instead
of "When we talk about insect consciousness ...", which says just what
it means.
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
b) implies simultaneousness between the clarifying and the talking.
No, it doesn't. Unless something in the context suggests such an
interpretation. As I noted in my reply.
Wrong, see above.
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-09 01:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
So did I.

/dps
b***@aol.com
2020-01-09 01:50:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
So did I.
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect consciousness
exactly is and usually talk about it to others.

They could say a), and the sentence could then mean:

a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk about
insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness carries
a lot of different meanings.

(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and addressed
to the same person/people.)

However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people,
and the sentence means:

b) When we talk about insect consciousness to others, it is worth
clarifying to them what we mean, since the term consciousness carries
a lot of different meanings.
Post by s***@gmail.com
/dps
Peter Moylan
2020-01-09 04:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Le mercredi 8 janvier 2020 22:08:10 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
So did I.
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
b) When we talk about insect consciousness to others, it is worth
clarifying to them what we mean, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
You are reading nuances into the difference between (a) and (b) that
English-speaking listeners would probably not hear, and that
English-speaking speakers would probably not intend.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@aol.com
2020-01-09 06:35:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Le mercredi 8 janvier 2020 22:08:10 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
So did I.
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
b) When we talk about insect consciousness to others, it is worth
clarifying to them what we mean, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
You are reading nuances into the difference between (a) and (b) that
English-speaking listeners would probably not hear, and that
English-speaking speakers would probably not intend.
Maybe, but that's conceivably the only difference in meaning between the
two wordings.
Post by Peter Moylan
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-09 14:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Le mercredi 8 janvier 2020 22:08:10 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
So did I.
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously? (Furthermore, A can "clarify"
the situation for B even if B has not comprehended the clarification.
No doubt that happens in the Oval Office on a daily basis. Unlike, say,
"admit," "clarify" carries no presupposition about the success of the
procedure.) (Wherefore we have the expression "clear as mud." It's a
response to "Is that clear now?")
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
b) When we talk about insect consciousness to others, it is worth
clarifying to them what we mean, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
You are reading nuances into the difference between (a) and (b) that
English-speaking listeners would probably not hear, and that
English-speaking speakers would probably not intend.
Maybe, but that's conceivably the only difference in meaning between the
two wordings.
Which is EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-09 15:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Le mercredi 8 janvier 2020 22:08:10 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Don't take idioms literally, and (this didn't apply earlier)
Stop Telling Native Speakers How To Speak Their Language.
It still doesn't. You missed my point again.
So did I.
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Furthermore, A can "clarify"
the situation for B even if B has not comprehended the clarification.
No doubt that happens in the Oval Office on a daily basis. Unlike, say,
"admit," "clarify" carries no presupposition about the success of the
procedure.) (Wherefore we have the expression "clear as mud." It's a
response to "Is that clear now?")
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by b***@aol.com
b) When we talk about insect consciousness to others, it is worth
clarifying to them what we mean, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
You are reading nuances into the difference between (a) and (b) that
English-speaking listeners would probably not hear, and that
English-speaking speakers would probably not intend.
Maybe, but that's conceivably the only difference in meaning between the
two wordings.
Which is EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU.
All your posts show otherwise.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-10 06:16:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 15:01:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
b***@aol.com
2020-01-10 17:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
Occasion 1: The two people clarify between them what insect consciousness
is, i.e by defining the exact scope of this notion.

Occasion 2: The two people talk to others about various aspects of insect
consciousness within the clarified scope thereof.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 18:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
Occasion 1: The two people clarify between them what insect consciousness
is, i.e by defining the exact scope of this notion.
Occasion 2: The two people talk to others about various aspects of insect
consciousness within the clarified scope thereof.
But that applies to any two separate events, and has nothing to do with
the original sentence or the original question, which was not about two
separate events!
b***@aol.com
2020-01-10 18:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
Occasion 1: The two people clarify between them what insect consciousness
is, i.e by defining the exact scope of this notion.
Occasion 2: The two people talk to others about various aspects of insect
consciousness within the clarified scope thereof.
But that applies to any two separate events, and has nothing to do with
the original sentence or the original question, which was not about two
separate events!
??? My point is precisely that the syntax of a) allows for a 2 separate
event scenario, but not so the syntax of b).
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 19:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
Occasion 1: The two people clarify between them what insect consciousness
is, i.e by defining the exact scope of this notion.
Occasion 2: The two people talk to others about various aspects of insect
consciousness within the clarified scope thereof.
But that applies to any two separate events, and has nothing to do with
the original sentence or the original question, which was not about two
separate events!
??? My point is precisely that the syntax of a) allows for a 2 separate
event scenario, but not so the syntax of b).
I don't know what the original sentence was, but you can only posit that
by inventing some outlandish context (as with any sentence by arthur-Navi
or tonbei or whoever asked the question).
b***@aol.com
2020-01-10 19:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
Occasion 1: The two people clarify between them what insect consciousness
is, i.e by defining the exact scope of this notion.
Occasion 2: The two people talk to others about various aspects of insect
consciousness within the clarified scope thereof.
But that applies to any two separate events, and has nothing to do with
the original sentence or the original question, which was not about two
separate events!
??? My point is precisely that the syntax of a) allows for a 2 separate
event scenario, but not so the syntax of b).
I don't know what the original sentence was,
What are you talking about, then?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
but you can only posit that
by inventing some outlandish context (as with any sentence by arthur-Navi
or tonbei or whoever asked the question).
No context was given, so I defined two different ones, which both make
sense.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-11 19:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
[someone else deleted the sentence in question]
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Here goes. Suppose two people don't agree on what insect
consciousness exactly is and usually talk about it to others.
a) It is worth clarifying now between us what we mean when we talk
about insect consciousness to others, since the term consciousness
carries a lot of different meanings.
(Where the clarifying and the talking aren't simultaneous and
addressed to the same person/people.)
However, with the syntax of b), the clarifying and the talking are
necessarily simultaneous and addressed to the same person/people, and
Given the nature of communication, how do the "clarifying" and "talking"
_not_ necessarily occur simultaneously?
They occur on the same occasion, as opposed to on two different occasions
as per a). Did you really not understand that?
Please provide a scenario in which the "clarifying" and the "talking" are
not simultaneous but are "on two different occasions."
I already did, just look a few lines up.
Not in any convincing way. How do "talking" and "clarifying" "occur on
two different occasions"?
Occasion 1: The two people clarify between them what insect consciousness
is, i.e by defining the exact scope of this notion.
Occasion 2: The two people talk to others about various aspects of insect
consciousness within the clarified scope thereof.
But that applies to any two separate events, and has nothing to do with
the original sentence or the original question, which was not about two
separate events!
??? My point is precisely that the syntax of a) allows for a 2 separate
event scenario, but not so the syntax of b).
I don't know what the original sentence was,
What are you talking about, then?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
but you can only posit that
by inventing some outlandish context (as with any sentence by arthur-Navi
or tonbei or whoever asked the question).
No context was given, so I defined two different ones, which both make
sense.
One of them does not make sense, unless you twist the original out of
all probability. It was simply not something someone would say if they
were talking about two different events.

Loading...