Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: A question of semantics

From:Estel Telcontar <estel_telcontar@...>
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2003, 17:47
 --- Tristan McLeay wrote:
> Estel Telcontar wrote: > > >This, what you're talking about here, gets me into a tangled knot of > >thoughts, which I'm going to try to disentangle. I'm not sure how > much > >of these thoughts are relevant to what you're talking about. > > > >First, your example reminds me of a specific instance where I've > never > >found adequate words to express the kind of certainty/uncertainty of > an > >experience. I'm thinking of an experience that we've probably all > had, > >though I sometimes think it occurs to me with a higher-than-average > >frequency (often several times daily): the experience of "seeing" > >someone, only to look again and find it's someone you don't know. > >Let's say the person I didn't actually see is called Jenny. > > > > I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with 'I thought I saw Jenny'. > Indeed, > I would say that describes exactly what happened. If I was unable to > tell whether or not it actually was Jenny (looked again and I she > wasn't > there, or even after looking again I wasn't sure because I hadn't > seen > Jenny in some time), then I would've said 'I think I saw Jenny' (even > if > I'm no longer actively thinking it and I'm just mentioning it, so the > tense is technically wrong).
I'm not sure exactly what's wrong with it either, though I'm trying to figure it out. It may be a case where - how do I explain this? - the statement is technically correct because it includes what I want to express, but unsatisfyingly inaccurate because its centre or focus is not on what I want to express. Almost as if the statement I make draws a circle around a some semantic territory, and my meaning is inside the correct semantic territory, but not near the middle, and I feel that when my statement is received, the listener/reader will automatically understand something near the middle of the circle of semantic territory. Whether or not this is such a case, I know I've found cases like that.
> >The problem is, I can't say "I saw Jenny", because it wasn't > actually > >her. > > > >I also can't say "I thought I saw Jenny", because that makes it all > >sound too intentional - like I actually believed I saw Jenny till I > >looked again and saw it wasn't her. But that's also wrong, because > >after "seeing" Jenny, I was aware that, given the briefness of the > >"seeing", and the frequency with which I mistakenly "see" people, it > >most likely wasn't her. > > > > But for the brief moment between seeing notJenny the first time and > the > second time, didn't you think it was Jenny? Isn't this the reason for > the looking a second time? Belief isn't an intentional thing, nor is > thinking (in this sense). When you say 'I thought I saw Jenny', the > only thing I would interpret that as is: > 1. Light entered your eyes from a scene only briefly in view. > 2. Your brain processed said light and decided a part of it was what > looks like Jenny. Therefore, at this stage, you think you saw Jenny. > 3. Intrigued, you move your head to see if it is Jenny. Why we do > this > I'm not sure but it seems almost automatic. > 4. More light from the same source enters your eyes and is processed > by > your brain. > 5. Your brain decides this time that it isn't Jenny. Therefore, at > this > stage, you *thought* you saw Jenny, but you no longer do (and 'I > thought > I saw Jenny' is sufficient to express this). > or > 4. You can't see the same person again. At this stage, you aren't > sure, > so you think you saw Jenny, but aren't certain (and 'I think I saw > Jenny' is sufficient to express this in certain contexts; you might > want > to add the '... but I'm not certain' disclaimer). > > Is that not what you mean?
I understand your point, and I can't find any flaws in your argument, but somehow it doesn't satisfy me. Perhaps it's an issue with different kinds of thinking - 1. thinking on an uncontrolled, not necessarily rational, intuitive level, which does think I saw Jenny. and 2. thinking on a rational, controlled, I'd almost say conscious, level, on which for no instant do I think I saw Jenny. And perhaps I shy away from saying "I think/thought I saw Jenny" because I expect it to be understood with "think 2" not "think 1". Does that make any sense?
> Tristan
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Replies

Nick Maclaren <nmm1@...>
Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>
Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>