WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > OK. But it does have one off-putting
> > consequence: The person who answers "What's
> in
> > the box?" with "Nothing" has given on xorxes'
> > view the right answer, there is nothing in
> the
> > universe of discourse in the box (I'm
> assuming
> > that air molecules have not been talked aobut
> > recently, since that would usually cue the
> > answerer to use them in the answer).
>
> Right.
>
> > Thus, the
> > response pointing to the air molecules in the
> box
> > (we do agree that they were there all the
> time
> > don't we?) is not an acceptable correction
>
> Well, in some cases it might be. In fact, many
> people rejoice
> in making such corrections. It is not a nice
> correction (unless
> for some reason it was important to consider
> air as a thing),
> but once made, we have to deal with it. "There
> is nothing in the
> box!", "yes there is, there's air in it!",
> "Well, yes, but
> I meant that there's nothing but air in the
> box".

But on your view there was nothing at all in the
box, the air wasn't available to be there until
it was mentioned. Unless something not mentioned
can be in the universe, in which case, where the
limits? Why not allow the usual sort of universe,
since it is easier to deal with?

> > (and
> > by the way bringing something from the
> universe
> > into the light) but a piece of Gricean dirty
> > pool, changing the game in mid stream. Not a
> > move we ought to be recommending.
>
> It's a move that happens all the time. In what
> sense we
> ought not recommend it?

The fact that it happens all the time — that is
that that verbal exchange occurs — is evidence
that what is happening is not what you claim,
i.e. that the universe does not contain something
until it is mentioned. It is only under that
rubric that his action is condemned, so, since we
do not condemn it but even favor it, I take it
that your position is incorrect.

> > > No, quantifiers don't refer. Saying "some
> cows"
> > > "all cows" or "no cows" just introduces
> cows.
> > > {ro lo bakni}, {su'o lo bakni}, {no lo
> bakni}
> > > and {lo bakni} will all require {lo bakni}
> to
> > > have referents in the universe of
> discourse.
> > > The quantifiers just quantify over those
> > > referents,
> > > they don't introduce them.
> >
> > Were the cows there before or not?
>
> I have no idea, what's the context? If we are
> in a cow farm
> the cows will probably be there from the start.
> In this
> discussion, there were no cows until we started
> talking
> about them.

How were they there on the cow farm if not yet
mentioned at the beginning of the conversation?
I see that you are allowing that somethings other
than what are mentioned are in the universe, so
mentioning the first time them is sometimes not
introducing them. But now why then do we ever
need to introduce something at all — it may be
there alreeady and we just did not notice — as
the cows were on the farm, say.

> > If not then
> > the use of the expression must introduce
> them, if
> > they were there already, where are the
> limits? I
> > pass over our differences about what "refers"
> > means.
>
> I'm not sure what kind of limits you are
> talking about.
>
If the universe contains some things that are not
mentioned in the conversation, how does this
differ from a universe given at the beginning
with only the referential relations being filled
in as the conversation proceeds?