[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: "what i have for dinner"



> From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> 
> And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > I don't remember any discussion on Linguist about that. If you
> > could exercise a bit of your detective genius & locate it for me
> > somewhere I'd be very very grateful.
> 
> No actual discussion, just Q (mine) and summary (mine). See
> http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-504.html#4 and
> http://linguistlist.org/issues/3/3-525.html#1 respectively.

I remembered them when I read them. Hard to imagine it was 1992.

Anyway, your question is more "how do languages express what in
English are indirect interrogatives", whereas what I'm after is
"what do indirect interrogatives mean, logically". I note pc's
pointers to some literature. Mind you, I'll be mightily pissed
off if they simply posit a WH quantifier, which is the usual
strategy, & strikes me as a copout.
 
> > On the other hand, it could be argued that if I wonder who came then
> > it does follow that "I want that (Ax) (I know whether x came)".
> 
> I think this is an excessively robust kind of wondering.  If I wonder
> who wrote the book of love (from a doo-wop song, full lyric
> available at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/lyrics/booklove.htm), it does
> not follow that I actually want to know this: my curiosity may be
> quite idle.

OK, but wondering decomposes into some kind of trying/wanting with
respect to some kind of epistemic state. Whether or not we can find
appropriate expressions for those in English, _X wonder P_ nonetheless
means "X dweeble that X beeble that P", where "dweeble" is some kind
of trying/wanting and "beeble" is some kind of epistemic state.

I couldn't be arsed to look up the doo-wop song URL, so sang myself
"Sea of Love" instead.

--And.