bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (02/02/89)
Consider the assertion, The prince of France is bald. From this assertion, we can logically conclude any of three consequents: The prince of France is heir apparent to the throne. The prince of France has no hair apparent. The prince of France has made a monkey out of his father (e.g. the king of France is a hairy parent.) Clear? --Barry Kort
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (02/05/89)
In article <44267@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry Kort) writes: > > The prince of France has made a monkey out of his father > (e.g. the king of France is a hairy parent.) > >Clear? Shouldn't that be "...prince of France's son has..." --Blair "One should always make the pun agree with its antecedent..."
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (02/07/89)
In article <2046@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > Shouldn't that be "...prince of France's son has..." > > --Blair > "One should always make the pun > agree with its antecedent..." Huh -- Apparently so. --Barry Kort
rjc@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) (02/09/89)
In article <44267@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry Kort) writes: >Consider the assertion, > The prince of France is bald. (1) >From this assertion, we can logically conclude > The prince of France is heir apparent to the throne. (2) Presumably because 'The' implies uniqueness. I dissagree. From someone asserting (1) we can imply that they would believe (2) ( assuming that they are following all sorts of conventions ). In the abstarct, the sentence does not imply the latter at all ( even given a set of axioms about royal succession and so on ). >--Barry Kort -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna AKA rjc%uk.ac.ed.aipna@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk "Give me a beer and money sandwich: hold the bread" - Waldo 'DR' Dobbs