Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Conjunction reduction of 'The colours are light' and 'The... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The word 'light' is ambiguous (or polysemous) between 'not dark' and 'not heavy'

    Conjunction reduction of 'The colours are light' and 'The feathers are light' into 'The colours and the feathers are light' produces a zeugmatic sentence

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    The word 'light' is ambiguous (or polysemous) between 'not dark' and 'not heavy'Zeugma in conjunction-reduced sentences is evidence of ambiguity or polysemy

    Similar

    Absence of zeugmatic effects in conjunction-reduced sentences is evide...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    72%
    Conjunction reduction of sentences using 'exist' with different allege...72%
    One can represent two lights and simply represent one as brighter than...71%
    The word 'light' is ambiguous (or polysemous) between 'not dark' and '...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ambiguity
    View source passageHide passage
    Clearly, the ‘him’ in (43) can be interpreted as Phil or Stanley. But, crucially, how you interpret ‘him’ will depend on how you connect the two sentences. On the one hand, the interpretation of ‘him’ as referring to Phil goes hand in hand with a causal relation – its was the tickling that caused the poking (known as a result relation. Interpreting ‘him’ as referring to Stanley suggests goes hand in hand with a parallel relation. Of course the inference is defeasible – one can always break the c

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective