Comments on: Kamp Reverse-Sobels “Only” Suspension http://semantics-online.org/2005/10/kamp-reverse-sobels-only-suspension A weblog on semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, and intersections thereof Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:53:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: grouchy http://semantics-online.org/2005/10/kamp-reverse-sobels-only-suspension#comment-250 grouchy Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:01:44 +0000 http://www.semantics-online.org/wp/uncategorized/2005/10/kamp-reverse-sobels-only-suspension#comment-250 <p>An initial observation would be that the kernals are linked in a fuzzy manner. "Only Kim can pass the test." implies an indicative mood, but linked to " Maybe even [Kim] can't [sic][pass the test]", mixes the mood. </p> <p>First, the use of "and", rather than "but" or "or", should be addressed, as a conjunction carries it's own implied inference between kernals. "Only Kim can pass the test, or maybe (even) she cannot"... still fails to address the change in mood and aspect.</p> <p>Only Kim can pass the test, but maybe she will not. Only Kim could pass the test, but maybe even she cannot. Only Kim is able to pass the test, and maybe even she could not. Only Kim could have passed the test, and maybe even she has not/wlll not/cannot. </p> <p>By asserting that the subject "is able" to do something she has yet to do, the aspect is imperfective for the predicate. Yet the next kernal qualifies the same verb with a negation only upon a change of aspect, which requires a temporal change as well (unless both kernals are subjunctive).</p> <p>Only Kim ought to pass this test, and maybe even she cannot.</p> An initial observation would be that the kernals are linked in a fuzzy manner. “Only Kim can pass the test.” implies an indicative mood, but linked to ” Maybe even [Kim] can’t [sic][pass the test]“, mixes the mood.

First, the use of “and”, rather than “but” or “or”, should be addressed, as a conjunction carries it’s own implied inference between kernals. “Only Kim can pass the test, or maybe (even) she cannot”… still fails to address the change in mood and aspect.

Only Kim can pass the test, but maybe she will not.
Only Kim could pass the test, but maybe even she cannot.
Only Kim is able to pass the test, and maybe even she could not.
Only Kim could have passed the test, and maybe even she has not/wlll not/cannot.

By asserting that the subject “is able” to do something she has yet to do, the aspect is imperfective for the predicate. Yet the next kernal qualifies the same verb with a negation only upon a change of aspect, which requires a temporal change as well (unless both kernals are subjunctive).

Only Kim ought to pass this test, and maybe even she cannot.

]]> By: Tony Marmo http://semantics-online.org/2005/10/kamp-reverse-sobels-only-suspension#comment-249 Tony Marmo Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:13:03 +0000 http://www.semantics-online.org/wp/uncategorized/2005/10/kamp-reverse-sobels-only-suspension#comment-249 <p>What I see in this is the same problem as I mentioned in my <a href="http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/@LwabJbmThvNvnfBw/XdmaYWnf?128" rel="nofollow">working paper</a>, which I still have to re-write. The accessibility relation in this case is expressed by <i>maybe</i>, and what is accessed is a situation where <i>Kim cannot pass the test</i>, i.e., ¬π is true, while in another situation π is true. To avoid the contradiction <i>both π and ¬π are True</i>, the utterer of the sentence separates them in different containers, in this case, different situations (whether in the same possible world or not).</p> What I see in this is the same problem as I mentioned in my working paper, which I still have to re-write. The accessibility relation in this case is expressed by maybe, and what is accessed is a situation where Kim cannot pass the test, i.e., ¬π is true, while in another situation π is true. To avoid the contradiction both π and ¬π are True, the utterer of the sentence separates them in different containers, in this case, different situations (whether in the same possible world or not).

]]>