Re: OT: agnosticism

And Rosta scripsit:

> So I have no opinion about whether Altaic is a valid genetic
> entity, but on first learning that OJ had been arrested for
> murder by the LAPD, I formed the opinion that he was innocent.
Whereas I had no opinion about his innocence, but I presumed his
innocence (the golden thread, as Rumpole has it, that runs through
our common-law jurisprudence).

> > "I am dogmatic about what I know, and skeptical about what I don't."
> >         --one of Ray Smullyan's philosophical-fictional interlocutors
>
> Are those _what_s interrogative or relative? [Or is the ambiguity
> an intentional part of the meaning?]
Relative (= "that which"), IMHO.  I assume by "interrogative" you mean
an indirect question, but I can't get that reading.

BTW, back to that/which: I think the reason people don't object to
restrictive "who" as strongly as restrictive "which" is that
there is a feeling that "that" is more appropriate for things than
people, despite ample witness in biblical/poetic language.

It would be an interesting corpus project to see if "PERSON that"
is actually less frequent than "PERSON who", relative to the
frequencies of "THING that" vs. "THING who".

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
        --Douglas Hofstadter

Reply