In a message dated 10/8/2001 8:22:23 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
I think that could be ambiguous. It may have the meaning you intend, Hmmm. OK, bad example -- but you get the point, which is made as well by your version: that the presuppositions of the included sentence do not go up to the enclosing one. <>Better, though "hit" is not the same as "beat" either. What would be the differences? What do you suggest for "beat"? (In Spanish I would use "golpear" for both.)> "Beat" involves repeated striking on each single occasion. <Why should they be stripped of their force? Is this a moral issue, or is there a logical basis for the stripping?> Ouch, a hard question -- as most in value theory are. The point is that in compelling the "logical" answer -- Yes or no -- you are also forcing a person to commit to the presuppositions, which he may not want to, perhaps because they are false. |