Comments on: Huitink on Anankastic Conditionals http://semantics-online.org/2005/01/huitink-on-anankastic-conditionals A weblog on semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, and intersections thereof Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:17:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Tony Marmo http://semantics-online.org/2005/01/huitink-on-anankastic-conditionals#comment-184 Tony Marmo Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:48:29 +0000 http://semantics-online.org/2005/01/huitink-on-anankastic-conditionals#comment-184 <p>I agree with Section 5 of Huitink's paper. By the way, to see that anankastic are not conterfactuals one just needs to apply the tests you have presented in <a href="http://web.mit.edu/fintel/www/conditional.pdf" rel="nofollow">your own paper on conterfactuals</a>. For instance, anankastic conditionals admit contrapositions, counterfactuals do not. Unless, of course, von Stechow and others do not agree with your paper and have a different understanding of what counterfactuals are. In my humble opinion, I think that von Stechow et ali's analysis rather treats anankastic conditionals as <i>contrapositions</i>. I hope it is now possible to post comments.</p> I agree with Section 5 of Huitink’s paper. By the way, to see that anankastic are not conterfactuals one just needs to apply the tests you have presented in your own paper on conterfactuals. For instance, anankastic conditionals admit contrapositions, counterfactuals do not.
Unless, of course, von Stechow and others do not agree with your paper and have a different understanding of what counterfactuals are. In my humble opinion, I think that von Stechow et ali’s analysis rather treats anankastic conditionals as contrapositions.

I hope it is now possible to post comments.

]]>