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
    The representations 'Easy-to-please(John)' and 'Eager-to-... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The representations 'Easy-to-please(John)' and 'Eager-to-please(John)' efface the semantic asymmetry between sentences (20) and (21).

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If (20) is true, John is easily pleased, meaning it is easy for someone to please John, where 'it' is pleonastic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If (21) is true, John is eager that he please someone or other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These two readings differ in argument structure (John as object of pleasing vs. John as subject of pleasing).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Predicate-argument representations are tools for inference tracking, not exhaustive semantic analyses, so notational economy is a virtue, not a defect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Chomsky's distinction between D-structure and S-structure shows that surface predicate representations can mask deep asymmetries without thereby effacing them, since further levels of representation restore the distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The semantic asymmetry between (20) and (21) is recoverable from the lexical semantics of 'easy' and 'eager' themselves, so the one-place predicate notation does not destroy the information but merely defers it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's event-semantics tradition holds that logical form is revealed by inference patterns, not by notational isomorphism with underlying argument structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Easy-to-please(John)' and 'Eager-to-please(John)' license systematically different inferences—e.g., only the latter entails John has a desire—then the semantic asymmetry is preserved at the inferential level even if hidden at the representational surface.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Chomsky's distinction between D-structure and S-structure shows that surface pre...Davidson's event-semantics tradition holds that logical form is revealed by infe...If 'Easy-to-please(John)' and 'Eager-to-please(John)' license systematically dif...If (20) is true, John is easily pleased, meaning it is easy for someone to pleas...
    +5 moreShow less
    If (21) is true, John is eager that he please someone or other.Predicate-argument representations are tools for inference tracking, not exhaust...Representations like 'Easy-to-please(John)' and 'Eager-to-please(John)' treat bo...The semantic asymmetry between (20) and (21) is recoverable from the lexical sem...These two readings differ in argument structure (John as object of pleasing vs. ...

    Similar

    Representations like 'Easy-to-please(John)' and 'Eager-to-please(John)...84%Representations (20S) and (21S) make manifest the contrast between 'ea...78%'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' present Venus in different ways, yielding ...77%These two readings differ in argument structure (John as object of ple...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logical-form
    View source passageHide passage
    If (20) is true, John is easily pleased. In which case, it is easy (for someone) to please John; and here, ‘it’ is pleonastic. But if (21) is true, John is eager that he please someone or other. This asymmetry is effaced by representations like ‘Easy-to-please(John)’ and ‘Eager-to-please(John)’. The contrast is made manifest, however, with (20S) and (21S); where ‘e’ indicates an unpronounced argument position.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit