Comments for some-antics.com http://some-antics.com/blog when i say "some", you think "not all" Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:16:20 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on mammals with tentacles by tim http://some-antics.com/blog/2010/06/30/mammals-with-tentacles/comment-page-1/#comment-40674 tim Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:16:20 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/?p=628#comment-40674 WHERE ARE ITS EYES WHERE ARE ITS EYES

]]> Comment on x is not x unless it P by Aidan Kehoe http://some-antics.com/blog/2010/06/23/x-is-not-x-unless-it-p/comment-page-1/#comment-40540 Aidan Kehoe Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:13:01 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2010/06/23/x-is-not-x-unless-it-p/#comment-40540 Hah, I love that. Hah, I love that.

]]> Comment on sort by date fail by emma http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/11/12/sort-by-date-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-35451 emma Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:56:28 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/11/12/sort-by-date-fail/#comment-35451 omggg get yr juice boxes and canned food in storage omggg get yr juice boxes and canned food in storage

]]> Comment on sort by date fail by simon http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/11/12/sort-by-date-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-35448 simon Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:46:04 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/11/12/sort-by-date-fail/#comment-35448 fuxx0r thats another y2k waiting to happen fuxx0r thats another y2k waiting to happen

]]> Comment on major major paper by Darren http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/09/29/major-major-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-34163 Darren Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:09:06 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/09/29/major-major-paper/#comment-34163 I've been reading your blog for 14 years. I’ve been reading your blog for 14 years.

]]> Comment on major major paper by Aidan Kehoe http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/09/29/major-major-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-34131 Aidan Kehoe Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:42:05 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/09/29/major-major-paper/#comment-34131 Best of luck with it! Best of luck with it!

]]> Comment on Cool Hwip by Chris P http://some-antics.com/blog/2007/08/04/cool-hwip/comment-page-1/#comment-33680 Chris P Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:30:13 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2007/08/04/cool-hwip/#comment-33680 Obviously where you're from. UK, shit and shite are totally differing words - the meaning also similarly differs in some regional dialects. Obviously where you’re from. UK, shit and shite are totally differing words – the meaning also similarly differs in some regional dialects.

]]> Comment on Throw down yr by Jdawg http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/07/10/throw-down-yr/comment-page-1/#comment-32018 Jdawg Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:31:25 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/07/10/throw-down-yr/#comment-32018 Tweet Tweet

]]> Comment on for once in my life/i want you back by Aidan Kehoe http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/07/02/for-once-in-my-lifei-want-you-back/comment-page-1/#comment-31899 Aidan Kehoe Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:52:41 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/07/02/for-once-in-my-lifei-want-you-back/#comment-31899 Glorious! :-) Glorious! :-)

]]> Comment on whether (or not) by Lance http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/06/08/whether-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-31435 Lance Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:06:19 +0000 http://some-antics.com/blog/2009/06/08/whether-or-not/#comment-31435 "Strongly exhaustive" isn't really the right term. Strong exhaustivity involves knowing not only the true answer, but knowing <em>that</em> the true answer is the (complete) true answer. For instance, "John knows who called" requires John to believe of everyone who called that they called, and to not believe of anyone else that they called. With a whether-question, since the set of possible propositional answers has two mutually distinct elements, i.e. {that S, that not S}, if you know which one of those is true, you pretty much have to know that the other one isn't. (For that matter, "knowing which A are B", even when it's strongly exhaustive, doesn't entail "knowing which A are not B"; see Heim 1994, and the sentence <em>In 1978, Feynman knew which subatomic particles had been discovered, but he did not know which particles had not</em>.) With that said, I was thinking about "whether or not" just the other day, and I admit I don't know what exactly it's doing. Best guess: it's redundant but rhetorical, i.e. it's semantically redundant but has a pragmatic effect of emphasis. “Strongly exhaustive” isn’t really the right term. Strong exhaustivity involves knowing not only the true answer, but knowing that the true answer is the (complete) true answer. For instance, “John knows who called” requires John to believe of everyone who called that they called, and to not believe of anyone else that they called. With a whether-question, since the set of possible propositional answers has two mutually distinct elements, i.e. {that S, that not S}, if you know which one of those is true, you pretty much have to know that the other one isn’t.

(For that matter, “knowing which A are B”, even when it’s strongly exhaustive, doesn’t entail “knowing which A are not B”; see Heim 1994, and the sentence In 1978, Feynman knew which subatomic particles had been discovered, but he did not know which particles had not.)

With that said, I was thinking about “whether or not” just the other day, and I admit I don’t know what exactly it’s doing. Best guess: it’s redundant but rhetorical, i.e. it’s semantically redundant but has a pragmatic effect of emphasis.

]]>