Elements of Style in English
in [Lisp]
|
From: Vend on 14 May 2010 12:23 On 14 Mag, 11:34, p...(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > > >> Water droplets are falling. In the action described by "it rains", there > >> is clearly a 'ontological' subject: the water droplets. > > > Consider expressions like "it is raining cats and dogs" or "it was > > raining soup". It's clear that the things that are falling from the sky > > are the objects of the verb, not the subjects. > > Yes, that's my point. There is a thing that falls. There is no action > without something that does this action, AFAIK. But in the phrase "it is raining", which could be considered an abbreviation of "it is raining water", "water" is the object of the verb, not the subject. In fact, the phrase doesn't really have a subject, "it" is merely a syntatic placeholder. However, in Italian that phrase becomes "piove", which could be considered an abbreviation of "piove acqua", where "acqua" (water) is the subject of "piove" (rains). In other languages (Hindi?) the same phrase becomes something equivalent to "rain is happening".
From: Bob Felts on 14 May 2010 12:57 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-14 11:18:41 -0400, Bob Felts said: > > > There's actually a recent article which claims to show experimental > > support for the future influencing the past, but I can't find it at the > > moment. > > Just wait a bit. By then the future will have influenced the past, and > you will have found it. > > ;^) My friend hasn't yet responded to my ping (I suspect he's headed out for vacation already) but, of course, Google has several pointers, e.g. http://chapmannews.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/chapman-professor-lands-disc over-cover-story/
From: Tim Bradshaw on 14 May 2010 14:46 On 2010-05-14 14:56:51 +0100, Bob Felts said: > Second, Pascal said "some underlying reality" -- he did not say that he > knew what it really is. So by what magic do natural languages know this? Did God tell us?
From: Tim Bradshaw on 14 May 2010 14:48 On 2010-05-14 16:04:22 +0100, Bob Felts said: > Man doesn't have free will. I think when someone states that you know they've lost, because it's just trivial that this is not a claim that can ever be proven or disproven.
From: Bob Felts on 14 May 2010 14:52
Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-05-14 14:56:51 +0100, Bob Felts said: > > > Second, Pascal said "some underlying reality" -- he did not say that he > > knew what it really is. > > So by what magic do natural languages know this? Sorry, but to what does "this" refer? The point that I was making is that we perceive that there is something external to us; we can't know if our perceptions are congruent to what is really out there. |