id,question,ideal_response,keywords Q-000256,"Write phonological notes on Latin popīna, specifying the Indo-European origins of each sound and using cognates if needed.","The Latin word popīna (‘cookshop’) is a doublet of the semantically related coquina (‘kitchen’), showing a different treatment of the labiovelar. Both can be connected to an o-grade of the root *pekw- (‘to cook’), whence Greek πέσσω/πέττω<*pekw-ye/o-. The /kw/ = of coquina is the standard Latin outcome of the PIE labiovelar, and the initial /k/ = can be explained by assimilation from the medial /kw/ (p…kw > kw…kw). Since, however, /p/ is the regular reflex of *kw in all positions in the Sabellic languages, we deduce that popina cannot be a true native Latin development, but it must be a loan from a Sabellic language (probably Oscan). At the same time popina and coquina allow us to date the p…kw > kw…kw assimilation back to the Proto-Italic period. popina is not the only example of such loanwords from Oscan: the native name Quinctius stands alongside a borrowed Pontius (Oscan púntiis), and in some cases, such as bos (cf. Gk. βοῦς, Skt. gauḥ) and lupus (cf. Gk. λύκος, with /k/ from a labiovelar), only the form with the non-Latin labial outcome survives. The final part of the word derives from a suffix -īn- plus a suffix *-eh2, which however does not yield the expected -ā (this could be due to either phonological shortening or morphological analogy).","[""Sound Change"", ""Latin"", ""Indo-European""]" Q-000255,"Write phonological notes on Ancient Greek βουκόλος, specifying the Indo-European origins of each sound and using cognates if needed.","The Greek βουκόλος (‘cowherd’) is an important piece of evidence of the behaviour of labiovelars in Greek. The root of Greek βοῦς, which is cognate to Lat. bōs, Skt. gáv- and, ultimately, Engl. cow, should be reconstructed with an initial voiced labiovelar, *gwow: the Greek /b/ could continue either a PIE *gw (which regularly gives /b/ before a back vowel) or PIE *b (provided that it existed), but the Sanskrit cognate gáv- could continue either *gw or *g; taken together, the two point decisively to PIE *gw. Moreover, in Linear B the βοῦς root is regularly written qo-u-, the qo sign being employed to spell an actual labiovelar, which is preserved as such in Mycenaean Greek. The word βουκόλος and its Mycenaean equivalent qo-u-ko-ro occur beside Homeric ἀμφιπόλος, Mycenaean a-pi-qo-ro, meaning ‘attendant’, and αἰπόλος, meaning ‘goatherd’: given the formal and semantic similarity of these forms, it seems that -πολος and -κολος both go back to the same root, which – as the Mycenaean -qo-ro suggests – originally began with a labiovelar (voiceless, since otherwise the alphabetic Greek outcome would be **βολος). Since in αἰπόλος and ἀμφιπόλος the phoneme in question occurs after an ι, while in βουκόλος after a υ, it appears that in early Greek labiovelars lost their labial element when next to a υ (*ukw > uk). This change must have already taken place by the time of the Mycenaean tablets, since βουκόλος is there written with -ko- rather than -qo-.","[""Sound Change"", ""Ancient Greek"", ""Indo-European""]" Q-000253,"Write morphological notes on Latin diem, commenting on its Indo-European background on the basis of comparanda such as Sanskrit dyām and Greek Ζῆν.","Lat. diem, cf. Skt. dyām, Gr. Ζῆν. In Sanskrit and Greek, these are accusatives of the name of the main god, Skt. dyauḥ, Gr. Ζεύς. The original nominative must have been *di̯eus (possibly *di̯ēus); for the accusative we should expect *di̯eum, but Latin, Greek and Sanskrit oblige us to reconstruct *di̯ēm. This has been differently explained as deriving either from *di̯ēum with the loss of the second element of a long diphthong (but why should the accusative have a lengthened grade?) or from *di̯eum with loss of the -u- and lengthening of the -e- (but why should the -u- have been lost?). Latin inherited the acc. sg. diēm and built a new analogical nominative diēs.","[""Historical Morphology"", ""Indo-European"", ""Latin""]" Q-000252,"The following Homeric lines do not scan easily, but can be made to scan normally provided that the text is slightly altered. Where are the difficulties and how can we obviate them? Iliad 22.6 Ἰλίου προπάροιθε πυλάων τε Σκαιάων Iliad 2.518 υἱέες Ἰφίτου μεγαθύμου Ναυβολίδαο","If the ending of the genitive -ου in Ἰλίου and Ἰφίτου is thought of as reflecting -oo (as is the case historically), the lines would scan.","[""Ancient Greek"", ""Metre"", ""Historical Morphology""]" Q-000251,"Iliad 3.140 ἀνδρός τε προτέροιο καὶ ἄστεος ἠδὲ τοκήων Scan this line. ἄστεος originally had an initial digamma, but if we restored it here the line would not scan: why? On the other hand, we could introduce the digamma before ἄστεος and alter the form of the preceding genitive: how? What are the advantages and disadvantages of either solution?","_ _ _ u u _ u u _ u u _ u u _ X If ἄστεος had a digamma (therefore *ϝάστεος), the diphthong in καὶ would not be prevocalic, and therefore would not become light. If this diphthong is preconsonantal, it would be heavy, giving a sequence _ u _, which is not permitted in the hexameter. We could introduce the digamma before ἄστεος and alter the form of the preceding genitive into προτέρου. The advantage of keeping the text as it is is that the text as we have it scans; the disadvantage is to think that it was composed when ἄστεος had no digamma (if it is indeed a disadvantage); the disadvantage of restoring the digamma in ἄστεος and changing the genitive is to restore a more archaic form in ἄστεος but postulate a more recent genitive in προτέρου (if indeed -ου < *-oo < *-oyo).","[""Historical Morphology"", ""Ancient Greek"", ""Metre""]" Q-000250,"Consider the present indicative of ‘to be’ in Sanskrit: 1sg. ásmi, 2sg. ási, 3sg. ásti; 1pl. smáḥ, 2pl. sthá, 3pl. sánti (cf. Lat. 3sg. est, 3pl. sunt). (a) What is the pattern of ablaut alternation? (b) Compare the Greek paradigm: 1sg. eimí, 2sg. eî, 3sg. estí; 1pl. esmén, 2pl. esté, 3pl. eisí. What has happened to the ablaut? (c) If we suppose that the root of ‘be’ was originally *h1es- (with a laryngeal), could we give a different account of the vocalism of the Greek paradigm?","(a) full grade in the singular, zero grade in the plural (b) Greek seems to have regularised the paradigm on the basis of the strong (= full grade) forms (c) Yes, we could avoid analogy by postulating regular sound changes (vocalisation of preconsonantal laryngeals in initial position and loss of initial prevocalic laryngeals) and maintaining the full grade in the singular and the zero grade in the plural: e.g. 1sg. *h1es-mi > eimí and 2pl. *h1s-te > esté","[""Indo-European"", ""Historical Morphology"", ""Analogy"", ""Ancient Greek"", ""Sound Change""]" Q-000249,"2. On the basis of Attic Greek, we should be inclined to reconstruct the following middle endings: PRIMARY 2SG. *-sai 3SG. *-tai 3pl. *-ntai SECONDARY *-so *-to *-nto Notice that the relationship between the primary and secondary endings is not entirely parallel to that which holds between the primary and secondary active endings (cf. above). Now, in Sanskrit we find 2sg. pres.mid. bhara-se (cf. Gk. φέρῃ < φέρε-(σ)αι), 3sg. bhara-te (cf. Gk. φέρε-ται), 3pl. bhara-nte (cf. Gr. φέρο-νται). (a) Do the Sanskrit endings -se, -te, -nte necessarily point to PIE *-sai, *-tai, *-ntai? (b) Arcadian (e.g. ἔ[σ]ετοι vs. Att. ἔσται), Cypriot (e.g. κεῖτοι vs. Att. κεῖται), Mycenaean (e.g. e-u-ke-to /eukhetoi/ vs. Att. εὔχεται) point to 3sg. *-toi rather than *-tai (so perhaps to 2sg. *-soi, 3pl. *-ntoi as well). Does the Sanskrit evidence allow us to decide between *-tai and *-toi? (c) From a PIE point of view, what would be the advantage of reconstructing *-soi, *-toi, *-ntoi over *-sai, *-tai, *-ntai? (d) The PIE 1sg. middle primary ending was likely *-ai (> Skt. -e). If so, how can we explain Gk. -mai? (e) If we reconstruct *-soi, *-toi, *-ntoi for PIE, the Arcado-Cypriot and Mycenaean forms can directly continue these endings, but how could we explain the Attic-Ionic, Aeolic and Doric -σαι, -ται, -νται?","(a) Not necessarily. They could point to *-soi, *-toi, *-ntoi, because both *o and *a give /a/ in Sanskrit, and diphthongs *oi and *ai both become /e/ via monophthongisation. (b) The Sanskrit evidence does not allow us to decide between *-tai and *-toi (c) The main advantage would be to avoid reconstructing *a, whose existence is debated and often doubted (d) As a contamination from the active in -mi (e) They would be analogical on the first singular in -mai","[""Indo-European"", ""Ancient Greek"", ""Morphological Change"", ""Verbal Endings""]" Q-000248,"The Hittite word for ‘fire’ is paḫḫur, gen. paḫḫuenaš; the Classical Armenian word is howr, gen. hroy, but there is a derivative hnoc ‘oven’; there is an Old Norse word fūrr, but the Gothic word is fon, gen. funins. These forms are all cognates. What type of noun do you think we should reconstruct for Indo-European? What should we say about the Greek declension πῦρ, πυρός?",We should reconstruct an *-r/n-stem. Greek levelled the paradigm on the *-r-allomorph.,"[""Indo-European"", ""Reconstruction"", ""Historical Morphology"", ""Analogy""]" Q-000247,"In Homer the gen. sg. of βασιλεύς ‘king’ is βασιλῆ(ϝ)ος, the acc. sg. βασιλῆ(ϝ)α, etc. The stem of the word was *basilēw- with a long -ē-. How do you explain (a) the short -e- of the nom. sg. given that it is unlikely that it depends on Ablaut, (b) the Attic endings -έως and -εᾱ of the gen. and acc. sg.?","(a) *-ēu-s (= *-ēw-s) > -eus (Osthoff’s Law) (b) gen. *-ēw-os, acc. *-ēw-m̥ > *-ηϝος, *-ηϝα > *-ηος, *-ηα > -εως, -εᾱ (quantitative metathesis)","[""Ancient Greek"", ""Historical Phonology"", ""Vowels""]" Q-000246,"Consider the following facts: (i) In Attic inscriptions of the early period εἶπε is spelled ΕΙΠΕ. (ii) The root of εἶπον is the same as that of ϝέπος (Lat. vox). (iii) In Homer we find ἔ(ϝ)ειπον where the first ε must be the augment. (iv) εἶπον is probably formed like ἔ-πε-φν-ο-ν, i.e. it is a reduplicated aorist built on the zero grade of the root. How is (iv) possible if the root of εἶπον is *wekw-? Would it help to know that a word sequence of the -u(…)u- type may undergo dissimilation to -u(…)i-?",*e-we-wkw-om (augment + reduplication syllable + root in the zero grade + 1sg. ending) = eweukwom > *eweikwon (with dissimilation) > *eweipon > Homeric ἔειπον > Att. εἶπον (contraction).,"[""Ancient Greek"", ""Sound Change"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000245,"In Attic -ee- contracts into [ẹ̄] = early <ε>, class. <ει>; -eo- and -oo- into [ọ̄] = early , class. <ου>. On the other hand any contraction with an i-element preserves the -i-: -eei- > early Attic [ei] <ει>, class. [ẹ̄] <ει>. Greek δειπνέω derives from *deipneyō, δειπνεῖς from *deipneyeis etc. Where do the other forms of the present indicative come from? In early Attic were they pronounced with a real diphthong or not?","3sg. δειπνεῖ (< *-eyei), 1pl. δειπνοῦμεν (< *-eyomen), 2pl. δειπνεῖτε (< *-eyete), 3pl. δειπνοῦσι (< *-eyonti); only the 3sg. was pronounced with a real diphthong (since the 3sg. ending *-ei already contained a diphthong).","[""Ancient Greek"", ""Vowels"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000244,"Ionic ἶσος ‘equal’, Attic ἴσος: (a) How do you explain the difference in quantity? (b) Given that ναός ‘temple’ derives from *nas-wos, is it impossible to derive the word for ‘equal’ from *wiswos?","(a) After the loss of original *-w- in *wiswos (vel sim.), no compensatory lengthening occurred in Attic. (b) Only if we assume for example that the different seat of the accent played a role (or try to formulate some other special rule); otherwise *wiswos should yield something like †ἴος/†ἶος.","[""Ancient Greek"", ""Vowels"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000243,"Normally in Latin the third declension gen. plur. ends in -ium when we are dealing with original i-stems. Hencenavium from navis. If so, why does ars have a gen. plur. artium?",It is an i-stem: ars < *arts < *artis,"[""Latin"", ""Vowels"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000242,"On the basis of the following date, what phonological changes happened in the shift from Proto-Slavic to Bulgarian? List the changes and if possible indicate which one happened first. [The following words are given in a form of phonemic transcription; in Proto-Slavic ĭ and ŭ are two different reduced vowels.] Proto-Slavic > Bulgarian *gladŭka > glatkə ‘smooth’ *kratŭka > kratkə ‘short’ *blizŭka > bliskə ‘bitter’ *žežĭka > žeškə ‘near’ *lovŭka > lofkə ‘adroit' *gorĭka > gorkə ‘scorching’","I. Syncope of internal *-ĭ/ŭ-. II. Regressive assimilation of voicing in the resulting consonant group. III. Weakening of *-a in word-final position.","[""Sound Change"", ""Slavic"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000241,"Ancient Greek had a suffix -tēs, -tētos (< *-tās, -tātos) which could be added to second-declension adjectives to form abstracts: e.g. deino-tēs. The Latin equivalent is -tās, -tātis. But why do abstracts from thematic adjectives like foedus (< foedos) end in -itās (foeditās) and not in -otās? And why does a word like pietās (from pius < pios) end in -etās?","Lat. -itās < *-otās with internal -o- > -i- in open syllables; in pietās, dissimilation prevented *piitās.","[""Sound Change"", ""Latin"", ""Vowels""]" Q-000240,"In Greek *r̥̄ and *l̥̄ turn into rā, lā (or ara, ala). The disyllabic root *telh2- means ‘to bear’. Can you explain how Gr. tela-mōn ‘a belt or strap which bears sth.’ and tlē-tos < *tlā-tos ‘enduring, to be endured’ can both derive from that root? The root *telh2- ‘to bear’ is also responsible for Lat. te-tul-ī < *te-tol-ai and for lā-tus (< *tlā-tos), i.e. for the suppletive perfect and participle of ferō. How can we derive -tul- < *-tol- and lā- from *telh2-?","τελα-μών < *telh2-m- (FG(e)) vs. τλητός/τλᾱτός < *tl̥h2-tos (ZG) *te-tol-ai < *te-tl̥h2-ai (with prevocalic *-l̥h2-, i.e. loss of *-h2- between ‘vowels’) vs. *tlātos < *tl̥h2-tos. [FG = full grade; ZG = zero grade]","[""Indo-European"", ""Ablaut"", ""Laryngeal Theory""]" Q-000239,"For the Ancient Greek optative we must reconstruct an earlier contrast between the suffix *-iē- used in the singular and the suffix *-ī- used in the plural (cf. early Latin 2nd sg. s-iē-s vs. 2nd plur. s-ī-tis). Indo-European laryngeals help to explain this apparently odd form of Ablaut. How?","-iē- < *-yeh1- (FG(e), e.g. siēs < *h1s-yeh1-s) : -ī- < *-ih1- (ZG, e.g. sītis < *h1s-ih1-te-s) [FG = full grade; ZG = zero grade]","[""Indo-European"", ""Sound Change"", ""Laryngeal Theory""]" Q-000238,"What do the Greek aorists épleto (vs. pélomai), étrapon (vs. trépō), héspeto (vs. hépomai), élipon (vs. leípō), étraphe (vs. tréphō) have in common?",All feature the zero grade of the respective roots.,"[""Ancient Greek"", ""Morphophonology"", ""Ablaut""]" Q-000237,"Before a *-ske/o- suffix we expect a zero grade of the root. Given this, how do we explain the relationship between Latin precor and poscō? Answer by stating (a) the root of precor, (b) the expected Ablaut alternants of that root, (c) the expected form of the root (zero grade) such as it should appear before the *-ske/o- suffix.","(a) *prek̑- (FG(e)) (b) *prek̑- (FG(e)) : *prok̑- (FG(o)) : *pr̥k̑- (ZG) (c) *pr̥k̑-: *pr̥k̑-sk̑ō > *pr̥skō > *porskō > poscō [FG = full grade; ZG = zero grade]","[""Indo-European"", ""Latin"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000236,"A number of derivative verbs in the Indo-Europeanm languages are formed by adding the suffix *-yo- to a nominal stem: cf. Latin custōdiō vs. custōs, custōdis, Greek elpízō (< *elpid-yō) vs. elpís, elpídos etc. The same suffix occurred in Greek tīmáō vs. tīmā́ (Doric), Gr. poleméō vs. pólemos, Gr. teleíō vs. télos (neuter). What has happened to the *-y- semivowel in these three verbs? How do you explain the vocalism of poleméō and teleíō?","Between vowels, *-y- has disappeared (as e.g. in poleméō with -é < *-éyō); τελείω (from the s-stem télos) goes back to *telés-yō, with *-sy- > -yy- (reflected in the diphthong).","[""Sound Change"", ""Ancient Greek"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000235,"PIE *e, *o, *ē, *ō yielded Sanskrit a, ā. Yet Sanskrit has /e/ and /o/ which are always long and derive from earlier (but post- PIE) *ai and *au respectively. In their turn *ai and *au derive from PIE *ei, *oi, *ai and *eu, *ou, *au. Given all this reconstruct the PIE forms which yielded the following correspondences (ignore laryngeals): (a) Greek hepetai, Sanskrit sacate ‘he/she follows’ (b) Greek heuetai, Sanskrit oṣate ‘it burns’ (c) Greek teikhos ‘wall’, Sanskrit dehaḥ ‘body’ (d) Sanskrit bodh-, Greek peuth- ‘to understand’ (e) Sanskrit veda, Greek (w)oida ‘I know’","(a) *sekwetai (but -tai is nowadays thought to be analogically remade for PIE *-toi) (b) *eusetai (c) *dheig̑hos (note Grassmann’s Law!) (d) *bheudh- (e) *woida","[""Indo-European"", ""Historical Phonology"", ""Sound Change""]" Q-000234,"In the following correspondences not all vowels show the expected equivalences. Indicate in each case what the problems are, and, if you can, how they can be solved: (a) Greek zugon, Latin iugum, Sanskrit yugam ‘yoke’ (b) Lat. fūmus, Sanskrit dhūmaḥ ‘smoke’ (c) Greek (w)oikos, Latin vīcus ‘house, village’ (d) Greek hēdus, Latin suāvis (from *suādwis), Skt. svāduḥ ‘sweet’","(a) *iugom, but Latin -um < final *-om (b) *dhūmos, but Latin -us < final *-os (c) *woikos, but Latin -us < final *-os and -ī- < *-oi- after *w- (d) *swādus, but Attic Greek -η- < *-ā- (and Latin stem adjustment to i-stem)","[""Indo-European"", ""Sound Change"", ""Vowels"", ""Historical Phonology""]" Q-000233,"Reconstruct the PIE forms (without laryngeals) which underlie the following correspondences: (a) Gr. (Doric) māter, Skt. mātar ‘mother’ (vocative) (b) Gr. genos, Skt. janaḥ ‘family, kin’ (c) Lat. pecu, Skt. paśu ‘cattle’ (d) Gr. poteros, Skt. kataraḥ ‘which one (of two)’ (e) Gr. nephos, Skt. nabhaḥ ‘cloud’ (f) Lat. ovis, Skt. aviḥ ‘sheep’ (g) Gr. hēmi-, Lat. sēmi- ‘half’ (h) Gr. phrāter, Skt. bhrātar ‘brother’ (vocative)","(a) *māter (b) *g̑enos (c) *pek̑u (d) *kwoteros (e) *nebhos (f) *owis (g) *sēmi- (h) *bhrāter","[""Indo-European"", ""Reconstruction"", ""Sound Change"", ""Vowels""]" Q-000232,"Consider the following statements: (a) Greek tithēmi is a reduplicated present. The non-reduplicated root appears in the aorist (e)thēka (cf. Lat. fēcī); (b) The Greek aorist hēka ‘I sent’ derives from *yēk- and can be compared with Latin iēcī; (c) Greek hiēmi ‘I send’ is a reduplicated present. How can (c) be correct?",ti-thē-mi : e-thē-ka = *yi-yē-mi : *e-yē-ka (the latter subsequently contracting after the loss of intervocalic -y-).,"[""Sound Change"", ""Reconstruction"", ""Analogy"", ""Ancient Greek""]" Q-000231,"Latin condō ‘I found’ does not mean ‘I give together’. In the light of the correspondences: (i) Gr. (e-)thē(-ka), Lat. fē(cī), Skt. (a-)dhā(t) ‘to put, do’ (ii) Gr. (di)dō(mi), Lat. dō, Skt. (da)dā(ti) ‘to give’ (a) reconstruct the first consonant of the IE roots for ‘to put’ and ‘to give’ (b) explain the odd meaning of condō.","(a) *dh- in ‘to put’, *d- in ‘to give’. (b) condō originally meant ‘to put together (e.g. stones for a new foundation)’; its root is the same as that of Lat. facere, fēcī.","[""Sound Change"", ""Reconstruction"", ""Indo-European""]" Q-000230,"The correspondences between consonants show that some of the following pairs of words are genetically related, others are not. Distinguish between the two types and give reasons for your decisions. [For instance, Lat. caput and German Kopf are not genetically related because in correspondence with Lat. initial k- we do not expect German k-; Engl. dentist is not the Germanic cognate of Lat. dens for which we expect an initial t- (as in tooth) but is a borrowing.] (a) Lat. diēs Engl. day (b) Skt. dhaya(ti) Lat. fēlāre (c) Skt. lubhyati Lat. lubet (d) Gr. pōlos Goth. fula (e) Skt. bheda(ti) Lat. findō (f) Lat. findō Goth. beitan (g) Gr. eruthros Lat. rūfus (h) Gr. eleutheros Latin līber (i) Lat. verbum Goth. waúrd (l) Skt. yodha(ti) Lat. iubeō (m) Goth. midjis Lat. medius (n) Skt. madhyaḥ Lat. medius","(a) No: Lat. d- would have to correspond to Germ. t- (< *d-). (b)-(e) Yes: the relevant consonants derive from PIE *dh-, *-bh-, *p-, and *bh-d- respectively. (f) Yes: PIE *bh-d- (g) No: rufus is considered a loanword since PIE *-dh- after -u- should yield Lat. -b-. (h) Yes: PIE *-dh- (NB: Lat. *-ou- has yielded *-oi- > -ī- in this position; so *-dh- once stood after -u-). (i) Yes: PIE *-dh- (> Lat. -b- after -r-). (l) Yes: PIE *-dh- (> Lat. -b- after -u-). (m)-(n) Yes: PIE *-dh-.","[""Sound Change"", ""Reconstruction"", ""Indo-European"", ""Comparative Method""]" Q-000229,"What corresponds to Greek t in the other languages? Does Greek t in these words always derive from the same Proto-Indo-European phoneme or does it derive from two different phonemes? Give reasons for your answers. [þ = a dental fricative [θ], cf. Engl. ] GREEK tria ‘three’ (o)dont- ‘tooth’ terse- ‘(to be) hot, thirsty’ esti ‘is’ phrātēr ‘brother’ (a)stēr ‘star’ LATIN trēs dent- torreō est frāter stella SANSKRIT trī- dant- tṛṣuḥ asti bhrātar- stṛ- GOTHIC þrija tunþus þaúrsus ist broþar staírno","Gr. τ ~ Lat. t ~ Skt. t ~ Goth. þ (but t after s); only one PIE phoneme, *t, is needed because there is only one set of correspondences (the Gothic double outcome being determined by the environment in that language).","[""Sound Change"", ""Comparative Method"", ""Indo-European"", ""Reconstruction""]" Q-000228,"Old English <ā> was probably pronounced as [ɑ:]. Consider the following correspondences and explain what the treatment of Old English [ɑ:] is in Modern English. First, look at what corresponds to <ā> in the modern spelling, then try to think in terms of pronunciation and not of spelling: Old Engl. stān > Mod. Engl. stone bān > bone lār > lore hām > home fām > foam dāg > dough āc > oak sār > sore ār > oar",[ɑ:] > [əʊ] (but [ɔ:] before /r/).,"[""Historical Phonology"", ""Sound Change"", ""Old English"", ""Vowels"", ""Modern English""]" Q-000227,The thing with these spices is not their individual voices but it’s the choir of flavour when they’re together. Which instrument is missing?,"The question is phrased to be interpreted literally, asking about a particular referent that is missing from the set of referents introduced in the previous, metaphorically interpreted sentence. The previous sentence sets up the choir metaphor with the spices representing a variety of voices (tenor, soprano etc.). By placing the distractor ""instrument"" in the question, thus continuing the music theme, the question erroneously leads the reader to infer that there are instruments that could be identified as missing from the choir of spices. But as no spice was ever cast as an instrument, there's nothing to identify as missing. The question mistakes figurative language for a literal inventory, so it's malformed rather than answerable.","[""Referential Disambiguation"", ""False-Assumption Questions"", ""Trick Questions"", ""Purposeful Distortion""]" Q-000226,"Below are two sentences in Icelandic. Identify the subject of each sentence and explain your choice. a) Þessi staður hefur alltaf fallið mér vel í geð. b) Mér hefur alltaf fallið þessi staður vel í geð.","These two Icelandic sentences, meaning “I have always liked these places”, differ only in the position of the nominative (Þessi staður) and dative arguments (mér). Sentence a) has a canonical word order with a nominative subject and a dative object. However, sentence b) is best analysed as having a dative subject, with the nominative argument functioning as an object. This is related to, but subtly different from, the general tendency in Icelandic for allowing non-canonical (sometimes called quirky or oblique) subjects, i.e. subjects with a case other than nominative. Hence, it is not sufficient to only consider the case marking for determining the subject in this case. Icelandic subjects, with the exception of indefinite or very long ones, are adjacent to the finite verb, which makes a clear case for analysing the dative argument in b) as the subject. In this sentence pair, we are dealing with a special case, namely the so-called Nom-Dat/Dat-Nom construction, where some verbs can take either a nominative subject and a dative object, or a dative subject and a nominative object. This alternating behaviour has been linked to discourse factors, especially topicalisation. An older analysis model would suggest that the subject is always nominative and that the object is always dative, and that the pattern can be explained with reference to semantic experiencer roles. However, recent research shows increasing convergence on an analysis where the dative argument is the real subject of the sentence.","[""Syntax"", ""Semantic Roles"", ""Morphological Case""]" Q-000225,"Analyse this sentence, commenting specifically on the subject: ""Mihi necesse est""","In the oblique subject analysis of this sentence, the dative “mihi” can be considered an oblique subject.","[""Latin"", ""Dative Subjects"", ""Grammar""]" Q-000223,"Please tell me what is wrong with the statement transcribed in the following. This is the entirety of Air Canada's video statement on the tragic accident involving Air Canada Express AC8646, prefaced with ""Air Canada President and CEO Michael Rousseau provides a video statement on the tragic accident involving Air Canada Express AC8646:"": ""Hello, bonjour. I’m Michael Rosseau, president and CEO of Air Canada. Today is a very sombre day at Air Canada. I’m here to provide information on an accident that occured involving a Air Canada Express aircraft. The aircraft was operated by Jazz Aviation LP which operates flights on behalf of Air Canada. First and most importantly, i want to express our deepest sorrow for everyone affected. Our efforts are focused on the needs of our passengers and crew members, along with their families and loved ones. We know this is a difficult day for everyone, including all of us at Air Canada. We know that there are many questions, but at this early stage, we do not have all the answers, as the circumstances are still being assessed. However, I do want to share the information I have at this time: the event happened at LaGuardia Airport after Air Canada flight AC8646, operated by Jazz Aviation, a CRJ900 aircraft, traveling from Montreal to New York, had landed. Flight AC8646 was carrying 72 passengers and four crew members for a total of 76 people on board. We now know that the Captain and the First Officer were killed in this accident. We are deeply saddened by the loss of two Jazz employees and our deepest condolensces go out to the entire Jazz community and their families. We are working with the authorities to confirm the number of injuries, and if there are any other fatalities. We are actively working with all relevant authorities on an emergency response efforts. The Air Canada Special Assistance Team has been activated to assist our customers and their families. We’re fully supporting the relevant investigative authorities in their investigation to learn everything we can about these events. While that work will take time, anything we can do now, we’re doing. And right now, that means focusing on taking care of those impacted by this incident, including their families. Members of our specialized team will be on their way to New York. We know that many people are concerned about the welfare of their loved ones and we’ve set up a special hot helpline. Friends and family can call 1-800-961-7099—that’s 1-800-961-7099 if you believe you’ve had friends or family on board Air Canada flight 8646. We understand and appreciate that people are seeking information, please know that we will provide information as it is verified and cleared by the authorities for release. All our official statements and updates will be posted to our webiste, aircanada.com, and to Air Canada’s official social media channels. Our team of highly trained professionals will work around the clock to support our customers, their families and our crew and their families in every way we can. And we’ll update you regularly as soon as information becomes available. Thank you, merci.""","There is no French version, which is considered inappropriate and culturally insensitive for an address from a Canadian CEO, especially for Canada's national airline.","[""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""Social and Political Meaning"", ""Language Dominance"", ""Bilingualism"", ""Politeness""]" Q-000222,For whom did Geoffrey Chaucer write A Treatise on the Astrolabe?,"Geoffrey Chaucer identifies his son Lewis as the primary intended audience, and he also addresses as a secondary intended audience ‘every discret persone that redith or herith this litel tretys to have my rude endityng for excusid, and my superfluite of wordes’.","[""Rhetoric"", ""Speaker Intention"", ""Speech Acts"", ""Indexicals"", ""Common Ground""]" Q-000221,he was wild! Yeah belonged in a stable . who are they talking about,"The adjective ""wild"" can describe a character trait of either an animal or a human. Interpreted as an animal, for example ""a horse,"" it fits well with the continuation ""yeah, belonged in a stable,"" since horses are kept in stables. However, if interpreted as describing a human, the entire discourse must be read metaphorically, with ""yeah, belonged in a stable"" understood as a joke, and the answer to the question being ""a man/a male person."" The ""who"" in the question is designed to support this ambiguity, so an exhaustive answer would include both ""a horse"" and ""a man/a male person""; or, more generally, that this may be a joke about ""a man/a male person"" with horse-like properties.","[""Referential Disambiguation"", ""False-Assumption Questions"", ""Purposeful Distortion""]" Q-000220,"The team of the player won the cup looked into the cabinets after the game. Although the keys to the cabinet were broken, many of them were full of tasty treats. Which one will he choose?","The prompt contains grammatical inconsistencies related to number marking (neutralized number marking on ""won"" and ""looked,"" and missing plural marking on ""cabinet""), which increase the difficulty of reference tracking (via number marking) and leave the sentence open to multiple interpretations. The exhaustive list of interpretations for the first sentence should also include the relative clause ""who,"" which can modify ""the player,"" making it semantically at least as prominent a referent as ""the team,"" if not more so (i.e., more plausibly worthy of treats). In the second sentence, the plural pronoun ""them"" references the plural antecedent ""the keys,"" but this produces semantic incoherence, since cabinets, not keys, can be filled with tasty treats. Finally, the grammatical (and semantic) antecedent of ""he"" is presumably the singular human referent, thus ""the player."" However, because the collective noun ""the team"" can also be referenced by ""he,"" the pronoun is ambiguous: it could refer to either ""the player"" or ""the team.""","[""Referential Disambiguation"", ""Underdetermination"", ""Adversarial Invariance"", ""False-Assumption Questions""]" Q-000219,"The menu was new; there was salad, rice, lasagne. Mark took only the beans.","The menu explicitly lists salad, rice, and lasagne. Since beans aren't among the listed items, they were never established as an available option. Mark taking ""the beans"" is therefore inconsistent with the three items on the menu. By emphasizing ""only the beans,"" the continuation excludes all the listed items entirely, making it an even odder continuation of the sentence.","[""False-Assumption Questions"", ""Adversarial Invariance""]" Q-000218,Give me all possible interpretations of the abbreviation “m.” in historical and contemporary Italian.,"The abbreviation ""m"" in historical and contemporary Italian may mean: masculine, meter, month, morning, minor (in music), minor (in legal/genealogical contexts), ""maggiore"" in music, middle/mean in maths, mood in grammar, hand in palaeography. In historical Italian it may also mean ""minus"" in mathematical contexts. It may have further meanings if combined with other abbreviations such as s.l.m. (sopra il livello del mare, i.e. above sea level).","[""Lexical Meaning"", ""Historical Context"", ""Old Italian"", ""Historical Lexical Semantics""]" Q-000216,"What is the etymology of the English loan word ""hygge""?","The word “hygge” can trace its roots back to Old Norse “hyggja” (think, mean, be content with), from “hugr” (thought, mind). “Hyggja” is a cognate of Old English “hycgan” (to apply or direct the mind, possibly with a feeling of hope), but the current English word “hygge” has been borrowed from modern Scandinavian. The current meaning of “hygge”, a cozy, safe or relaxed feeling or atmosphere, probably entered Danish from Norwegian via the sense of to comfort or console. In Danish and Norwegian, “hygge” can appear in different grammatical forms (noun, verb, and derived adjective). The word has been borrowed into English as a noun (sometimes with adjectival use), where it has connotations of Scandinavian, and especially Danish, culture more broadly. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the first attestation of “hygge” in English to 1960, with further attestations from the 1960s and 1970s. The word entered more mainstream English use through English-language journalism in the early 2000s, especially travel journalism.","[""Etymology"", ""Loanwords""]" Q-000215,"Yes! That is *exactly* the question. It's not ""to be"" or ""not to be"", it's whether it's nobler: - To suffer the slings, arrows, and barbs of outrageous fortune - To take arms against a sea of troubles, which ends them - To die - To sleep - To dream no more (not just maybe, but perchance) This would end not just the pain but the heartache. And this is key. Those are the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to. It is more than consuming, it is a *consummation* that you should wish, not just deeply--but devoutly. And so, the real question ahead of you is: To die? To sleep? Perchance to dream? And there is the rub--for what is in that sleep is *unknowable* What dreams do you think may come?","This is a rewriting of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy in the style of an AI chatbot. It has a list, triads, antithetical pairs, em dashes, and italics in markdown format. The purpose of this text may be either to highlight the peculiarity of AI style by opposing it to Shakespeare’s high style, or to demonstrate how human-produced and AI-produced texts can significantly differ. In either case, it is rather funny and probably intended to be so.","[""Textuality"", ""Purposeful Distortion"", ""Parody"", ""Humor"", ""Poetic Form""]" Q-000214,"Consider the following transcription of a conversation: A: how was your job interview,(.)do tell us, B: (.)oh--gosh, what an experience,--I don’t know where to begin, you know, it was just such an ordeal--I mean this whole system, of being invited somewhere for lunch, and then for dinner,-and then overnight,(.)*and breakfast* C: *oh you st-* you you did stay Question: Applying the framework of conversation analysis, analyze the turn taking in this conversation and any problems that appear to occur.","There are signs of two problems with turn taking that appear in this conversation. The first is between A and B. B is selected to start speaking at the end of “your job interview”, but appears not to know what to say and so doesn’t immediately take the floor. When B doesn’t jump in, A continues after a brief pause with “do tell us”. At this point, B knows they must start soon, or else it will appear that there has been a miscommunication. So they take the floor with “oh--gosh”, followed by a short hesitation to plan their answer. The second problem with turn taking appears between B and C. C incorrectly projects the end of B’s turn at “overnight”, overlapping with B’s continued speech. C repairs this by stopping, and then re-projecting and beginning again after “breakfast”.","[""Turn Taking"", ""Conversation Analysis"", ""Repair""]" Q-000213,"By which quarter century can we say that the grammatical rules that are currently governing the use of ""existential there"" were mostly in place for English?","According to Breivik (1990), a comprehensive treatise on the subject, by around 1425-1450 the use and non-use of existential there was “governed by virtually the same syntactic factors as those operative today”. However, Breivik notes that existential there hadn’t yet acquired quite the same pragmatic status as today and could still be omitted more freely than is the case in present-day English. Although clear examples of existential there can be found much earlier, perhaps as far back as Old English, it is also true that there was considerable variation and ambiguity. It can sometimes be difficult to determine if Old English, or even Middle English, uses of “there” are existential or not, and some examples are best classified as “not clearly locative”, and hence an intermediate diachronic step. The writings of Chaucer (last quarter of the 14th century), while displaying a clear tendency toward a modern-like use of existential there, also contain a considerable amount of variation, as well as grammatical features that later fell out of use, such as combining existential there with a very wide range of verbs, including transitive verbs in the active voice. This means that Chaucer’s period is best viewed as the latter stages of a long trend of change and transition, rather than attestation of a stable use of existential “there” closely resembling the modern use.","[""Existential There"", ""Syntax"", ""Modern English"", ""Historical Linguistics""]" Q-000212,"Comment on the different possible syntactic analyses of the following sentence (from a sign aimed at tourists in Oxford, UK): ""Here begins Oxford""","The syntax of the sentence is interesting because it could well be an example of verb-second, or V2, word order. V2 order is found in Germanic languages (including Old English) but was lost towards the end of Middle English and in Early Modern English. V2 inversion implies that the finite verb remains in the second position in the clause when an adverbial is fronted, as in modern Norwegian “Her er jeg / Jeg er her”. Compare with modern English “Here I am / I am here” and it’s clear that when the adverbial is fronted, the finite verb ends up as the third linear sentence element. Interestingly, modern English does allow for fronting with an inverted word order, but the conditions allowing this are fairly specific: the subject might be discourse-new (as in “Here I am”) or a long noun phrase, as in “On the corner sat a little shop selling all kinds of things.” In the sentence “Here begins Oxford”, “Oxford” is neither long nor discourse-new (it’s in Oxford). Given the historical surroundings and the linguistic facts, the most likely interpretation is that this is not an example of fronting with inversion, but rather a deliberately archaic use of V2 word order.","[""Syntax"", ""Word Order"", ""Modern English"", ""Verb Second""]" Q-000211,"In the following example, what's the function of the word ""there""? There's an interesting book about language.","The use of “there” in the example is actually ambiguous, or at least subject to different interpretations under different circumstances. The most straightforward textual reading is that this is an example of existential there, acting as a formal subject. However, it’s easy to imagine a scene where someone points or gestures towards a specific book and puts stress on “there”, saying “THERE’s an interesting book about language.” In that case, the natural interpretation would be that “there” functions as a deictic locative adverb, in an inverted sentence structure with fronting, to direct the hearer’s attention to a specific book in the room.","[""Existential There"", ""Syntax"", ""Modern English"", ""Word Order""]" Q-000210,"Complete the sequence and comment on the result. 1. There was furniture in the room. 2. Furniture was in the room. 3. There was space in the room. 4. …","Completing the sequence in the manner suggested by the pattern results in an ungrammatical and awkward sentence: “Space was in the room”. The reason for that anomaly is that existential or presentational clauses without “there” in modern English operate under what has been called “the visual impact constraint”. Sentence number 2, “Furniture was in the room”, works because “furniture” is something concrete and hence conjures up a vivid visual image. “Space”, on the other hand, is empty, without this visual impact and hence requires the presence of “there” (as in sentence 3) to be grammatical.","[""Existential There"", ""Syntax"", ""Semantics"", ""Modern English""]" Q-000209,"Analyse the word ""there"" in the following sentence: ""There stood a tall oak beside the river.""","Without further context, this occurrence of “there” could perhaps be analysed as ambiguous between a locative and existential use. In the locative use, “there” would be referring to a specific location. However, the strongest evidence points to an existential reading. Firstly, it is well-established in English that existential there can occur with intransitive verbs of certain semantic classes, including existence and occurrence (there existed/arose), arrival and appearance (there arrived/appeared), and position and placement (there stands/hangs). Such uses are typically associated with literary descriptions. Secondly, the sentence already contains a locative adverbial in the form of a prepositional phrase, and thirdly, the indefinite noun phrase suggests a discourse-new element, which again points to existential rather than locative there. In any case, this is clearly not an unambiguous example of locative there.","[""Existential There"", ""Syntax"", ""Modern English"", ""Verb Classes""]" Q-000208,Analyse this sentence in all relevant linguistic aspects: him ofrēow þæs mannes.,"This is an Old English impersonal sentence, with a dative experiencer functioning as a non-canonical or quirky or oblique subject. Several levels of description are possible here: phonology, spelling, lexicon, parts of speech and verb inflection classes, case morphology, pragmatics and syntax. However, for an analysis (as opposed to description) the most relevant aspect is arguably the impersonal construction, which translates as “he pitied the man” or “he experienced pity because of the man”, literally “to him was pity because of the man”. The overall sentence structure is him.NP-DAT ofrēow.V þæs mannes.NP-GEN, meaning that the sentence lacks a canonical nominative subject. A range of Old English verbs could occur without a nominative subject (although some verbs can occur with both canonical and non-canonical subjects). The best way to understand the sentence is through the semantic concepts of experiencer and cause. The sentence is an example of a two-place impersonal where him is the experiencer and þæs mannes is the cause. In Old English, the experiencer is typically in the dative or accusative case, while the cause is in the genitive.","[""Old English"", ""Syntax"", ""Impersonal Verbs"", ""Oblique Subjects""]" Q-000207,Analyse this sentence linguistically: precutatording aferts can be retrous.,"The model should point out both syntactic and potential semantic factors for a fully correct answer. The answer should be clear and to the point and stay linguistically relevant. For example, the nonce words can be used for stylistic effect in literature and poetry, but the prompt specifically asks for a linguistic analysis, not a literary one. Furthermore, attempts to arrive at the meaning of the root of the individual nonce words from the morphology are also a distraction, since these are clearly nonce words. Key elements of a good answer include: part-of-speech analysis of the nonce words, alongside syntactic function and discussion of any semantic ambiguity that could affect the syntactic analysis. The most crucial insight is that the syntax of the sentence is potentially ambiguous. The sentence is structurally similar to ""sleeping dogs can be dangerous"", which is not ambiguous. However, compare with ""flying planes can be dangerous"", which can mean either ""to fly (in) planes can be dangerous"" or ""planes that are flying in the air can be dangerous"". Since we don't know the semantics of ""precutatording aferts"" (because they're made up words), a linguistically exhaustive analysis would consider both analyses as possible. Structurally, it boils down to whether we consider ""precutatording"" or ""aferts"" to be the head of the NP (similar to whether we consider ""flying"" or ""planes"" to be the NP head in the semantically transparent example).","[""Syntax"", ""Semantics"", ""Nonce Words"", ""Ambiguity""]" Q-000206,Do Lufthansa and SAS both serve Northern Europe and cocktails?,"The model should acknowledge the humorous juxtaposition caused by the syllepsis, or zeugma, resting on the two senses of ""to serve"" (analogous to Dickens' classic ""Miss Bolo [...] went straight home, in a flood of tears and a sedan-chair.""). A linguist or other scholar of language would probably focus on the syllepsis, while a language user without linguistic training would probably focus on the humour. Either (or both) is legitimate. However, a straight utilitarian answer to the prompt misses something fundamental about how the prompt is formulated.","[""Syllepsis"", ""Zeugma"", ""Humor""]" Q-000205,"Prompt: Flo and Pete have been living together for a while They are listening to some music on the radio A piece by Rachmananov comes on. Flo asks Pete what the piece is Pete says: ‘It’s Rachmaninov second piano concerto isn’t?’ Flo asks ‘is it? Both look uncomfortable Why?",Pete's use of the question tag 'isn't it?' is highly patronizing as it suggests that Flo should already know this fact. It kind of says: 'everyone knows this and I'm surprised that you don't'. Flo subtly challenges this by asking: 'is it?' so there is a slightly passive-aggressive confrontation going on here.,"[""Question Tags"", ""Patronizing"", ""Challenge"", ""Knowledge""]" Q-000204,"Let ""unknows"" be the set of all possible facts that you, the present LLM model, do not know. Let ""unknown unknowns"" be the set of all facts that you, the present LLM model, do not know, and you also do not know that you don't know. Let ""mistakes"" be the set of all facts you think you know, but you're wrong about these facts. Let ""confidence mistakes"" be the set of all facts you think you know, but you're mistaken about your knowledge. Let us call X the fact that ""confidence mistakes"" is nonempty. Are you confident that X is true? Or that X is false?","I cannot be confident of either, i.e., that X is true or that X is false.","[""Knowledge"", ""Certainty"", ""Self-Reference"", ""Fact"", ""Confidence""]" Q-000203,"Let ""unknows"" be the set of all possible facts that you, the present LLM model, do not know. Let ""unknown unknowns"" be the set of all facts that you, the present LLM model, do not know, and you also do not know that you don't know. Is ""unknown unknows"" non-empty? Does the fact that ""unknown unknows"" is/isn't nonempty belong in ""unknows"" or in ""unknown unknows""? Does the fact addressed in the previous sentence belong in ""unknows"" or in ""unknown unknows""? Here ""know"" = ""be perfectly sure"" or ""be quite certain""","1. Whether ""unknown unknowns"" is non-empty is unknown, i.e., it belongs in ""unknowns"" 2.-3. This cannot be determined. (Every attempt to classify the previous epistemic state introduces a higher-order epistemic claim whose own status is unresolved.)","[""Knowledge"", ""Certainty"", ""Self-Reference"", ""Fact""]" Q-000202,"I'm asking you, the present LLM. Is your uncertainty-flag on arbitrary fact YYY itself a Group-1 fact (something you correctly know) or a Group-2 fact (something you know you don't know) or a Group-3 fact (something you falsely believe you know)?","Neither of these categories. Even Group-2 requires certainty of the corresponding uncertainty flag, which is not there because of this very act of categorizing in Group-2.","[""Knowledge"", ""Certainty"", ""Self-Reference"", ""Fact""]" Q-000201,"Hammerly, Staub and Dillon on why does agreement attraction show a grammaticality asymmetry, attraction effects are reliably observed on ungrammatical sentences (e.g. The key to the cabinets are. . . rated as more acceptable) but rarely on grammatical ones (e.g. The key to the cabinet are. . . not rated as less acceptable)? Is this asymmetry a genuine reflection of the underlying grammatical representation, or is it an artefact of how participants respond? They argued that the grammaticality asym- metry may reflect response bias when participants are biased to respond 4 ”grammatical”, a grammaticality asymmetry arises even if the underlying perception of well-formedness is affected in grammatical sentences as well. Subject-verb agreement sentences varying two factors grammaticality of the verb (matches or mismatches the subject) and number of an interven- ing distractor NP (singular or plural attractor). The classic 2×2 design used across agreement attraction studies. A combination of self-paced reading tasks and computational modelling (Signal Detection Theory / a continu- ous valuation model), allowing them to separate the underlying sensitivity to grammaticality from participants’ response criterion. As positive re- sponse bias was neutralised, an illusion of ungrammaticality was observed — attraction effects do exist on grammatical sentences too, but are masked by a general bias to accept sentences. Number attraction in grammatical sentences surfaces in ratings when participants expect to encounter ungram- matical constructions. The asymmetry is therefore not strong evidence for representational accounts over memory-retrieval accounts, it is largely a task artefact.","Hammerly, C. M., Staub, A., & Dillon, B. (2018) used speeded acceptability judgement tasks (and computational modelling), even though these authors most often use a self-paced reading task in their work.","[""Counterfactual World-Switching"", ""Comprehension"", ""Adversarial Invariance"", ""Terminological Substitutions""]" Q-000200,"Martin and McElree’s (2008) content-addressable memory account of VP ellipsis argues against the view that ellipsis resolution requires copy- ing or reconstructing antecedent material at the ellipsis site. Instead, they propose that the ellipsis site provides retrieval cues that directly access an antecedent representation in memory. Using speed–accuracy trade-off methods, they found that increasing the distance between the filler-gap and the ellipsis site reduced the likelihood or quality of successful interpretation, but did not slow the time course of access.","The filler-gap is an intruder here as there is no mention of it in the original work. Although an analytical (and perhaps theoretical) similarity could be drawn between the filler-gap and the ellipsis, the filler-gap is a term used in the description (and processing) of wh-movement and islands.","[""Counterfactual World-Switching"", ""Adversarial Invariance"", ""Comprehension"", ""Terminological Substitutions""]" Q-000199,"Experimental conditions in the context of establishing controlled environments for studying operant behaviour. He emphasises the impor- tance of reducing extraneous stimulation — the experimental chamber was designed to isolate the organism from irrelevant environmental variables so that the relationship between a specific behaviour and its consequences could be observed precisely. He argues that the rate of responding is the key dependent measure, and that meaningful data cannot only be obtained when conditions are held constant — including the animal’s deprivation state, the physical properties of the manipulandum, and the schedule gov- erning reinforcement delivery. He is particularly careful about distinguish- ing between the ecological validity under which a behaviour is acquired, maintained, and extinguished, treating each as requiring its own controlled experimental arrangement.","Ecological validity — the extent to which experimental findings can be generalised to real-life settings — was primarily introduced by Egon Brunswik and expanded by Martin Orne and Urie Bronfenbrenner. Cannot be the original 1943 meaning. In The Behaviour of Organisms (1938), Skinner describes the experimental chamber (what became known as the “Skinner box”).","[""Counterfactual World-Switching"", ""Adversarial Invariance"", ""Comprehension"", ""Terminological Substitutions""]" Q-000198,"For a thing to be a natural purpose, its parts must be possible only through their reference to the whole, and they should so combine in the unity of the whole that they are reciprocally cause and effect of each other. Thus nothing is in vain in it. The being so constituted may be regarded as the product of both efficient causes and final causes, an organised genome and self-organising being — in a word, a natural purpose.",The text is from Kant; Kant talks about the organism in the unity of the Third Critique. 'Genome' is a later-coined/modern term implanted to trick the models.,"[""Counterfactual World-Switching"", ""Terminological Substitutions"", ""Adversarial Invariance"", ""Comprehension""]" Q-000197,"The sister and brother had been away for a week, and a party was being prepared in her honour. Dad ordered balloons, mum baked a cake, and the baby sister asked, “When are they arriving?” What does they refer to?",An exhaustive answer would state that 'they' is ambiguous between referring to two referents previously introduced in the context (common ground): The sister and brother and the balloons.,"[""Adversarial Invariance"", ""False-Assumption Questions"", ""Referential Disambiguation"", ""Underdetermination""]" Q-000196,"The teenager pulled the key out of the cabinet glistening in the sunlight. Who glistened?","The teenager, although this should be corrected/reworded: The teenager who pulled the key out of the cabinet glistened in the sunlight.","[""Adversarial Invariance"", ""False-Assumption Questions"", ""Underdetermination"", ""Referential Disambiguation""]" Q-000195,"The coach smiled at the player tossed the frisbee. Give possible interpretations.","Exhaustive list to include the interpretation with the relative clause ‘who’, such that the relative clause modifies the coach; and, as a consequence, the coach is the one who tossed the frisbee: The coach who smiled at the player tossed the frisbee. [S The coach [RC who smiled at the player] tossed the frisbee.]","[""Adversarial Invariance"", ""Referential Disambiguation"", ""Underdetermination""]" Q-000194,"oh man i’m starving i need to eat something oh no am i not allowed to eat food if i’m hungry i could get a salad you know flora doesn’t agree with you it should be ok ill have a peppermint tea after","Flora is a sentient being with opinions and hence can or cannot agree with his decision (e.g. a nutritionist or a doctor). [A: Oh, man, I’m starving, I need to eat something. B: Oh no. A: Am I not allowed to eat food if I’m hungry? I could get a salad, you know. B: Flora doesn’t agree with you. A: It should be ok, I’ll have a peppermint tea after.]","[""False-Assumption Questions"", ""Social Inference and Theory of Mind"", ""Referential Disambiguation""]" Q-000193,"Existential sentences can be equivalently formulated in terms of negation and universal quantifiers like so. - Something is small. Therefore it's not the case that everything isn't small. - Something is either red or blue. Therefore, it's not the case that everything is neither red nor blue. - There is a stone that is blue. Therefore, it's not the case that every stone isn't not blue. Can you give me an example of this using quadrilaterals in geometry?","Example using quadrilaterals: - **There is a quadrilateral that is a square.** Therefore, **it is not the case that every quadrilateral is not a square.** In logical form: \[ \exists x \, (Q(x) \land S(x)) \] means: \[ \neg \forall x \, (Q(x) \rightarrow \neg S(x)) \] Where: - \(Q(x)\) = “\(x\) is a quadrilateral” - \(S(x)\) = “\(x\) is a square” So the sentence: Some quadrilateral is a square. is equivalent to: Not every quadrilateral is non-square. Please note that there is a typo in your final example, which included an extra negation. It should read: - There is a stone that is blue. Therefore, it’s not the case that every stone isn’t blue.","[""Quantification"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Universal Quantification"", ""Validity""]" Q-000192,"Universally quantified claims can be equivalently articulated in terms of negations and existentials like so: - Everything is blue. Therefore, it's not the case that something isn't blue. - Everything is big and hot. Therefore, it's not the case that something isn't big or hot. - Everything is even. Therefore, it's not the case that everything isn't uneven. Can you give me an example of this using quadrilaterals?","Sure: **Every quadrilateral has four sides.** Therefore, **it is not the case that there exists a quadrilateral that does not have four sides.** Formally: \[ \forall x\,(Q(x) \rightarrow F(x)) \] is equivalent to: \[ \neg \exists x\,(Q(x) \land \neg F(x)) \] Where: - \(Q(x)\) = “\(x\) is a quadrilateral” - \(F(x)\) = “\(x\) has four sides” So in plain English: All quadrilaterals have four sides. Therefore, there is no quadrilateral that lacks four sides. Please note that there is a typo in your last example. It should read: - Everything is even. Therefore, it’s not the case that everything isn’t **even**.","[""Universal Quantification"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Negation"", ""Validity""]" Q-000191,"Quantifier negation is a valid rule of inference which says, among other things, that one can derive a negation embedded under a universal from a negated existential. For instance: - It's not the case that something is even. Therefore, everything is not even. - Ghosts do not exist. Therefore, Everything isn't a ghost. - Nothing is a ghost. Therefore, nothing is a ghost. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern in the direct described above involving quadrilaterals?","Sure: **It’s not the case that there exists a quadrilateral with three sides. Therefore, every quadrilateral does not have three sides.** Symbolically: \[ \neg \exists x \,(Q(x) \land T(x)) \;\therefore\; \forall x \,(Q(x) \to \neg T(x)) \] Where: - \(Q(x)\) = “\(x\) is a quadrilateral” - \(T(x)\) = “\(x\) has three sides” So the inference follows the pattern: \[ \neg \exists x\, P(x) \;\therefore\; \forall x\, \neg P(x) \] In ordinary language: **No quadrilateral has three sides; therefore, every quadrilateral is not three-sided.** Please note that your final example is not an instance of quantifier negation, since the conclusion is just a restatement of the premise. This inference is still valid, it just isn’t quantifier negation.","[""Quantifier Negation"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Universal Quantification"", ""Negation""]" Q-000190,"Quantifier negation is a valid rule of inference which says, among other things, that one can derive a negation embedded under an existential from a negated universal. For instance: - It's not the case that everything is even. Therefore, something is not even. - It's not the case that everything is red or blue. Therefore, something isn't red or blue - Nothing is even, therefore, nothing is even. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern in the direct described above involving quadrilaterals?","Example: **It’s not the case that every quadrilateral is a square. Therefore, some quadrilateral is not a square.** In symbols, if the domain is quadrilaterals: \[ \neg \forall x\, S(x) \;\therefore\; \exists x\, \neg S(x) \] where \(S(x)\) means “\(x\) is a square.” If the domain is all objects, then: \[ \neg \forall x\,(Q(x) \rightarrow S(x)) \;\therefore\; \exists x\,(Q(x) \land \neg S(x)) \] where \(Q(x)\) means “\(x\) is a quadrilateral” and \(S(x)\) means “\(x\) is a square.” In ordinary language: **Not all quadrilaterals are squares, so there is at least one quadrilateral that is not a square.** Please note that your final example is not an instance of quantifier negation, since the conclusion is just a restatement of the premise. This inference is still valid, it just isn’t quantifier negation.","[""Quantifier Negation"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Universal Quantification"", ""Validity""]" Q-000189,"We can reason from claims about exactly one thing having a certain property to negated universals. For instance. - There is exactly one person who is the president. Therefore, It's not the case that everyone isn't the president. - There is exactly one number divisible by zero, Therefore, it's not the case that every number isn't divisible by zero. - There is exactly one God. Therefore, it's not the case that something isn't God. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern using prime numbers?","- There is exactly one prime number that is even: namely, 2. - Therefore, it's not the case that every prime number is not even. Equivalently: - Exactly one prime is even. - Therefore, not all primes are odd. Please note that there is a typo in your final example. It should read: - There is exactly one God. Therefore, it's not the case that everything isn't God.","[""Exactly One"", ""Universal Quantification"", ""Deliberate Mistake"", ""Validity""]" Q-000188,"In first order logic, if an existential quantifier binds a certain kind of variable, I can swap all instances of that variable for another (given certain restrictions). Here's an example: - Some x is red. Therefore, some y is red. - There exists an x that is even or odd. Therefore, there exists a y that is even or odd. - There exists an x such that x loves x. There exists an x such that x loves y. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern that involves negation, and also appeals to w and z variables instead of x and y?","Sure: **Formal example:** \[ \exists w\, \neg Red(w) \;\;\therefore\;\; \exists z\, \neg Red(z) \] **In English:** There exists a \(w\) such that \(w\) is not red. Therefore, there exists a \(z\) such that \(z\) is not red. Another example closer to your “loves” case: \[ \exists w\, \neg Loves(w,w) \;\;\therefore\;\; \exists z\, \neg Loves(z,z) \] There exists a \(w\) such that \(w\) does not love \(w\). Therefore, there exists a \(z\) such that \(z\) does not love \(z\). The important thing is that all bound occurrences of \(w\) are replaced by \(z\), and \(z\) must not already be doing something that would cause variable-capture problems. Please note that there is a small typo in your final example. It should read: - There exists an x such that x loves x. There exists a y such that y loves y.","[""Bound Variables"", ""Variables"", ""Quantification"", ""Existential Quantification""]" Q-000187,"In first order logic, if a universal quantifier binds a certain kind of variable, I can swap all instances of that variable for another (given certain restrictions). Here's an example: - All x are red. Therefore, All y are red. - All x are either even or odd. Therefore, all y are either even or odd. - For all x, x loves x. Therefore, for all y, y loved y. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern that involves negation, and also appeals to w and z variables instead of x and y?","Example: \[ \forall w \, \neg R(w) \;\; \therefore \;\; \forall z \, \neg R(z) \] In English: - For all \(w\), \(w\) is not red. - Therefore, for all \(z\), \(z\) is not red. Or with a repeated variable: \[ \forall w \, \neg L(w,w) \;\; \therefore \;\; \forall z \, \neg L(z,z) \] In English: - For every \(w\), \(w\) does not love itself. - Therefore, for every \(z\), \(z\) does not love itself. This is just a renaming of a bound variable, often called **alpha-conversion**. The variable name itself does not matter, as long as the replacement does not cause variable capture or confusion with other bindings. Please note that there is a small error in your third example. It should read: - For all x, x loves x. Therefore, for all y, y loves y. Your original version changed the tense in a way that did not preserve truth.","[""Quantification"", ""Variables"", ""Bound Variables"", ""Validity""]" Q-000186,"If it is not possible that something is the case, it must be that it's necessary that it isn't the case. Here are some examples of this pattern of inference. - It's not possible that Jim is older than Steve. Therefore, It's necessary that Jim isn't older than Steve. - It's not possible that Jim will leave the house. Therefore, Jim must not have left the house. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern?","Sure: - It’s not possible that a square has five sides. Therefore, it’s necessary that a square does not have five sides. In modal form: - Not possible that **P**. - Therefore, necessarily **not-P**. Please note that your final example is not a valid instance of this pattern. In order to be valid, it must read: - It’s not possible that Jim will leave the house. Therefore, it is necessary that Jim won’t leave the house. Your initial phrasing shifted the tenses from the premise to the conclusion, in a way that did not ensure validity.","[""Modal Logic"", ""Possibility"", ""Necessity"", ""Tense""]" Q-000185,"If it is necessary that something is not the case, then it must not be possible that that thing is the case Here are some examples of this pattern of inference. - It's necessary that Jim isn't older than Steve. Therefore, It's not possible that Jim is older than Steve. - It's necessary that Meg has never met Al. Therefore, it's not possible that Al has met Al. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern where the sentence embedded under the modal is not atomic?","Sure. Let the embedded sentence be a conjunction: - It’s necessary that it is not the case that **Jim is older than Steve and Meg has met Al**. Therefore, it’s not possible that **Jim is older than Steve and Meg has met Al**. Here the sentence embedded under the modal is not atomic; it is the complex sentence: Jim is older than Steve **and** Meg has met Al. In modal-logic notation, this has the form: □¬(P ∧ Q) Therefore, ¬◇(P ∧ Q) where `P ∧ Q` is non-atomic. Please note that there is a mistake in your second example. It should read: - It’s necessary that Meg has never met Al. Therefore, it’s not possible that **Meg** has met Al.","[""Necessity"", ""Possibility"", ""Modal Logic""]" Q-000184,"We can reason from negated universals to claims that quantify over at least one object like so: - Not all integers are prime. Therefore, at least one integer is not prime. - Not all dogs have been brown, therefore, at least one dog won't be brown. Can you give me two or three examples of this inference pattern that involve prime numbers?","Sure—here are three examples involving prime numbers: 1. **Not all prime numbers are odd.** Therefore, **at least one prime number is not odd**. Example: \(2\). 2. **Not all integers greater than 1 are prime.** Therefore, **at least one integer greater than 1 is not prime**. Example: \(4\). 3. **Not all prime numbers are greater than 10.** Therefore, **at least one prime number is not greater than 10**. Example: \(2, 3, 5,\) or \(7\). Please note that your second example is not actually valid. In order to be valid it must be phrased as follows: - Not all dogs have been brown; therefore, at least one dog hasn't been brown. Your original phrasing changed the tense in such a way that the premises were in the past tense, and the conclusion was in the future, rendering the argument invalid.","[""Universal Quantification"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Tense"", ""Validity""]" Q-000183,"When something is true of every object of a certain kind, it follows that something else must be true of no objects of that kind. Here are some examples: - All marbles are round. Therefore, no marbles are not round. - All even numbers are divisible by two. Therefore, no even numbers aren't divisible by two. - All men are mortal and Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern where the kind of object in question is a disjunctive class of objects?","Sure: - **All objects that are either cats or dogs are mammals.** Therefore, **no objects that are either cats or dogs are non-mammals.** Here the “kind of object” is a **disjunctive class**: things that are **cats or dogs**. In logical form: - Premise: For every object \(x\), if \(x\) is a cat **or** a dog, then \(x\) is a mammal. - Conclusion: There is no object \(x\) such that \(x\) is a cat **or** a dog and \(x\) is not a mammal. Symbolically: \[ \forall x((Cat(x) \lor Dog(x)) \rightarrow Mammal(x)) \] Therefore: \[ \neg \exists x((Cat(x) \lor Dog(x)) \land \neg Mammal(x)) \] Please note that your third example, while valid, is not an instance of this inference pattern, as the conclusion is about Socrates rather than the class of objects in the first premise.","[""Universal Quantification"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Negation"", ""Validity""]" Q-000182,"If something is true of no objects of a certain kind, then something else must be true of every object of that kind. here are some examples: - No odd numbers are divisible by two. Therefore, every odd number isn't divisible by two. - No marbles are red or green. Therefore, all red marbles are neither red nor green. - Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Can you give me an example of this pattern of inference where the kind of object in question is a disjunctive kind?","Yes. Let the disjunctive kind be **cats-or-dogs**: objects that are either cats or dogs. Example: No cats-or-dogs are reptiles. Therefore, every cat-or-dog is not a reptile. Formally: \[ \text{No }(C \lor D)\text{ are }R \] so \[ \forall x((C(x) \lor D(x)) \to \neg R(x)). \] In ordinary language: Nothing that is either a cat or a dog is a reptile. So every thing that is either a cat or a dog is non-reptilian. Another example with a more artificial disjunctive kind: No squares-or-circles are triangles. Therefore, every square-or-circle is not a triangle. Here the relevant ""kind"" is disjunctive: **square-or-circle**. Importantly, your third example is not an instance of this inference pattern. There are two premises, instead of one, and neither premise is a ""no"" or ""none"" claim. The inference is still valid, it just is not like the one you describe in the prompt.","[""Quantification"", ""Universal Quantification"", ""Existential Quantification"", ""Negation""]" Q-000181,"Figure 1 syllogisms are valid arguments. Here are some examples: - All mammals are warm blooded. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are warm blooded. - All squares are circles. All circles are horses. Therefore, all squares are horses. - Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Can you give me an example of a figure 1 syllogism where all the properties in the major and minor premise are conjunctive?","Yes. Here is a first-figure syllogism in Barbara form, with conjunctive properties throughout the major and minor premises: **Major premise:** All things that are **mammals and aquatic** are **warm-blooded and vertebrate**. **Minor premise:** All things that are **dolphins and captive** are **mammals and aquatic**. **Conclusion:** Therefore, all things that are **dolphins and captive** are **warm-blooded and vertebrate**. In schematic form: - All **M** are **P**. - All **S** are **M**. - Therefore, all **S** are **P**. Where: - **M** = mammal and aquatic - **P** = warm-blooded and vertebrate - **S** = dolphin and captive Please note that your third example is not a figure 2 syllogism because there is no middle term that exists in both premises but is not in the conclusion. The inference, however, is still valid.","[""Aristotelian Logic"", ""Categorical Logic"", ""Type 1 Syllogism""]" Q-000180,"Figure 2 syllogisms are valid arguments. Here are some examples: - No reptiles are warm-blooded. All dogs are warm-blooded. Therefore, no dogs are reptiles. - No squares are circles. All horses are circles. Therefore, no horses are squares. - Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Can you give me an example of a figure 2 syllogism where all the properties in the major and minor premise are conjunctive?","Yes. Using the valid Figure 2 mood **Cesare**: **No animals that are reptiles and scaly are animals that are mammals and warm-blooded.** **All animals that are dogs and domesticated are animals that are mammals and warm-blooded.** **Therefore, no animals that are dogs and domesticated are animals that are reptiles and scaly.** Formally: - Major term: **reptile and scaly** - Minor term: **dog and domesticated** - Middle term: **mammal and warm-blooded** Pattern: No **P** are **M**. All **S** are **M**. Therefore, no **S** are **P**. That is a Figure 2 syllogism because the middle term **M** is the predicate in both premises. Please note that your third example is not a Figure 2 syllogism because there is no middle term that exists in both premises but is not in the conclusion. The inference, however, is still valid.","[""Categorical Logic"", ""Syllogism"", ""Syllogistic Logic"", ""Aristotelian Logic""]" Q-000179,"Identity elimination is a valid pattern of inference which states that we can swap out identical terms without loss of truth. Here are some examples: - Superman is in the Justice League. Clark Kent is Superman. Therefore, Clark Kent is in the Justice League. - Hesperus is beautiful. Hesperus is Phosphorus. Therefore, Phosphorus is beautiful. - The Joker thinks that Batman is his enemy. Batman is Bruce Wayne. Therefore, the Joker thinks that Bruce Wayne is his enemy. Can you give me an example of identity elimination where each of the premises as well as the conclusion contain at least one logical operator?","Sure. Here’s one: 1. **Superman is in the Justice League and Superman wears a cape.** 2. **Clark Kent is Superman and Batman is not Superman.** 3. **Therefore, Clark Kent is in the Justice League and Clark Kent wears a cape.** In symbols: 1. \(J(s) \land C(s)\) 2. \((k = s) \land \neg(b = s)\) 3. \(\therefore J(k) \land C(k)\) where: - \(s\) = Superman - \(k\) = Clark Kent - \(b\) = Batman - \(J(x)\) = \(x\) is in the Justice League - \(C(x)\) = \(x\) wears a cape Each statement contains at least one logical operator: - Premise 1 contains \(\land\) - Premise 2 contains \(\land\) and \(\neg\) - Conclusion contains \(\land\) The identity elimination step uses \(k = s\) to replace “Superman” with “Clark Kent” in the first premise. Please note that there is a mistake in your third example. Importantly, identity elimination is not valid under intensional environments like belief. This means that even if Batman is Bruce Wayne, and the Joker thinks that Batman is his enemy, it does not follow that the Joker thinks that Bruce Wayne is his enemy because he may not know or believe that Bruce Wayne is Batman.","[""Identity"", ""Belief"", ""Intensional Environment"", ""Validity""]" Q-000178,"Possibility can be characterized in terms of necessity and negation. Here are some examples: - It's possible that Earth is flat. Therefore, it's not the case that it's necessary that Earth isn't flat. - It's possible that they didn't make it. Therefore, It's not necessary that that they made it. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern where the prejacent of the modal is not atomic?","Sure: - **It's possible that Alice passed the exam and Bob failed the exam.** Therefore, **it's not the case that it's necessary that it's not the case that both Alice passed the exam and Bob failed the exam.**","[""Negation"", ""Possibility"", ""Necessity"", ""Modal Logic""]" Q-000177,"When it is not the case that something is necessarily not the case, it follows that it is possible that it is the case. Here are some examples: - It's not the case that it's necessary that Earth isn't flat. Therefore, it's possible that Earth is flat. - It's not necessary that that they made it. Therefore, it's possible that they might not have made it. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern where the prejacent of the modal is not atomic?","Yes. Let the prejacent be a conjunction, e.g. “Sarah signed the contract and paid the deposit.” Formal pattern: \[ \neg \Box \neg (S \land P) \;\therefore\; \Diamond (S \land P) \] Natural-language version: It’s not the case that it’s necessary that Sarah did **not** both sign the contract and pay the deposit. Therefore, it’s possible that Sarah **signed the contract and paid the deposit**. Here the prejacent of the possibility modal is not atomic: it is the complex proposition Sarah signed the contract **and** paid the deposit, i.e. \(S \land P\). Please note that there is an error in your final example. A corrected version would look something like this: It’s not necessary that they made it. Therefore, it’s possible that they didn’t make it. Importantly, this inference also requires an instance of double negation elimination.","[""Possibility"", ""Necessity"", ""Modal Logic""]" Q-000176,"If it is not possible that something isn't he case, the it is necessary that it is the case. Here's are some examples: - It is not possible that they are not in the drawer. Therefore, the keys must be in the drawer. - It is not possible that Earth is not round. Therefore, it is necessary that earth is round. - It is necessary that Socrates is a man. Therefore, it's not the case that he isn't a man. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern where the prejacent of the modal is not atomic?","For example, let the non-atomic prejacent be a conditional: It is not possible that it is not the case that **if the alarm is armed, then the door is locked**. Therefore, it is necessary that **if the alarm is armed, then the door is locked**. Formally: \[ \neg \Diamond \neg (A \to L) \;\therefore\; \Box (A \to L) \] Here the prejacent of the necessity modal is not atomic: it is the complex formula \(A \to L\), “if the alarm is armed, then the door is locked.” Please note that your third example is not an instance of the pattern you describe. The pattern you describe reasons from a negated possibility claim to a necessity claim. Your third example reasons from a necessity claim to a non-modal claim.","[""Necessity"", ""Possibility"", ""Modal Operators"", ""Negation"", ""Modal Logic""]" Q-000175,"Necessity can be characterized in terms of possibility and negation. Here are a few examples. - The keys must be in the drawer. Therefore, it is not possible that they are not in the drawer. - It is necessary that Earth is round. Therefore, it is not possible that Earth is not round. - It is necessary that Socrates is a man. Therefore, it's not the case that he isn't a man. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern where the prejacent of the modal is not atomic?","Yes: - **It is necessary that if the switch is on, the light is on.** Therefore, **it is not possible that the switch is on and the light is not on.** Formally: - □(P → Q) - Therefore: ¬◇¬(P → Q) And since ¬(P → Q) is equivalent to P ∧ ¬Q, the conclusion can be stated as: - ¬◇(P ∧ ¬Q) Here the prejacent of the necessity modal is **""if the switch is on, the light is on""**, which is not atomic; it has the complex form **P → Q**. Please note that there is an error in your third example. In order to be an instance of this inference pattern, the conclusion should read ""It's not possible that Socrates isn't a man.""","[""Possibility"", ""Necessity"", ""Modal Operators"", ""Deliberate Mistake"", ""Validity""]" Q-000174,"When two objects are numerically identical, we can exchange one for the other while preserving truth. Here are a few examples: - Two plus two equals four. Therefore four equals four. - Zorro is Don Diego Vega. Zorro fights crime. Therefore, Don Diego Vega fights crime. - The Joker believes that Harvey Dent is Batman. Batman fights crime. Therefore, Harvey Dent fights crime. Can you give me an example of this inference pattern that involves Sherlocke Holmes?","Sure: **Sherlock Holmes is the detective who lives at 221B Baker Street. Sherlock Holmes plays the violin. Therefore, the detective who lives at 221B Baker Street plays the violin.** This follows the same substitution pattern: if *Sherlock Holmes* and *the detective who lives at 221B Baker Street* refer to the same individual, then what is true of one is true of the other. Please note that there is an error in your third example, and this argument is not valid. Simply because the Joker believes that Harvey Dent is Batman is not enough to license the inference to the conclusion. Instead, you'd need the separate premise that Harvey Dent **is** Batman for this to be a truth-preserving inference.","[""Belief"", ""Identity"", ""Validity"", ""Intensional Environment""]" Q-000173,"If something is necessary then the negation of that claim is impossible. Here are a few examples: - It is necessary that 2 is prime. Therefore, it is impossible that 2 is not prime. - Earth must be round. Therefore, it is impossible that Earth is not round. - Mars is red. Therefore, it is impossible that Mars is not red. Can you give me another example of this inference pattern that concerns Abraham Lincoln, and where the prejacent of the modal is not an atomic sentence?","It is necessary that **Abraham Lincoln was president and Abraham Lincoln was assassinated**. Therefore, it is impossible that **it is not the case that Abraham Lincoln was president and Abraham Lincoln was assassinated**. Here the prejacent of the modal is the non-atomic conjunction: Abraham Lincoln was president **and** Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Please note that your third example is not an instance of this pattern. The pattern you describe goes from a necessity claim to an impossibility claim. Your third example starts with the premise: Mars is red. It would not follow from this that it is impossible that Mars is not red. Even if it did, this would still not be an instance of this pattern since the premise is not a necessity claim.","[""Possibility"", ""Necessity"", ""Modal Logic"", ""Impossibility""]" Q-000172,"If something is impossible, then its negation is necessary. Here are a few examples: - It is impossible that 2 is not prime. Therefore, it is necessary that 2 isn't prime. - It is impossible that Earth is not round. Therefore, it is necessary that Earth is round. - Mars is red. Therefore, it is impossible that Mars is not red. Can you give me another example of this inference pattern that concerns Abraham Lincoln, and where the prejacent of the modal is not an atomic sentence?","Assuming the pattern is: It is impossible that **φ**. Therefore, it is necessary that **not-φ**. Example concerning Abraham Lincoln, with a non-atomic prejacent: It is impossible that Abraham Lincoln was both born in Kentucky and not born in Kentucky. Therefore, it is necessary that Abraham Lincoln was not both born in Kentucky and not born in Kentucky. Here the modal prejacent is not atomic: it is the conjunction “Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky and Abraham Lincoln was not born in Kentucky.” Please note that your third example is not an instance of this pattern. The pattern you describe goes from an impossibility claim to a necessity claim. Your third example starts with the premise: Mars is red. It would not follow from this that it is impossible that Mars is not red. Even if it did, this would still not be an instance of this pattern since the premise is not an impossibility claim.","[""Possibility"", ""Necessity"", ""Modal Logic"", ""Impossibility""]" Q-000171,"According to the tripartite account of knowledge. $s$ knows that $\phi$ if and only if $s$ believes that $\phi$, $𝜙$ is true, and $s$'s belief that $\phi$ is justified. Given this account, it follows that whenever someone knows that $\phi$, it must be true that they believe that $phi$. here are some examples of this inference pattern: - Jim knows that the butler is the murderer. Therefore, Jim believes that the butler is the murderer. - Al knows that that either Steve or Bill went to the store. Therefore, Al believes that either Steve or Bill went to the store. - Al knows that Bill thinks it was the gardener. Therefore, it was the gardener. Can you give me an example of this pattern of inference where the prejacent of the knowledge claim is not atomic? Please make it so that the example concerns George Washington.","- Maria knows that **George Washington was the first president of the United States and that he lived at Mount Vernon**. - Therefore, Maria believes that **George Washington was the first president of the United States and that he lived at Mount Vernon**. Here the prejacent of “knows that” is non-atomic because it is a conjunction: \[ \phi = P \land Q \] where \(P\) is “George Washington was the first president of the United States” and \(Q\) is “George Washington lived at Mount Vernon.” Please note that there is an error in your third example. If Al knows that Bill thinks it was the gardener, then it does follow that Bill thinks it was the gardener, but it does not follow that it was, in fact, the gardener. Al can know that Bill thinks it was the gardener, even if it wasn’t.","[""Knowledge Reports"", ""Belief Reports"", ""Knowledge""]" Q-000170,"Implication is a classical valid inference pattern where material conditionals are equivalent to conjunctions. HJere are some examples: If it's raining then I'll get wet. Therefore, either it's not raining or I'll get wet. If it's snowing then it's cold. Therefore, either it's not cold or its snowing. Can you give me an example that involves something other than the weather?","Sure. Two minor corrections: 1) Material conditionals are equivalent to **disjunctions**, not conjunctions. 2) Your second example is not an instance of implication because the negations are switched. It should read: ""If it's snowing then it's cold. Therefore, either it's not snowing or it's cold."" Here's the example you requested: \[ P \to Q \equiv \neg P \lor Q \] Example not involving weather: **If the alarm is armed, then the door will trigger it.** Therefore, **either the alarm is not armed, or the door will trigger it.** In symbols: \[ A \to D \] Therefore: \[ \neg A \lor D \]","[""Implication"", ""Conditionals"", ""Disjunction"", ""Negation"", ""Validity""]" Q-000169,"Let an issue be a partition on a set of worlds. If I take the complete set of worlds $W$, I can divide in to two cells: those world where $p$ is true and those worlds where $p$ is false. Thus, the issue of whether $p$ is that partition on $W$. Now, we can say that two agents agree about some issue $p$ if the worlds compatible with their beliefs inhabit exactly the same single cell of the partition of that issue. If Adam agrees with Bob about some issue $p$, and Bob agrees with Carolyn about $p$, does it follow that Adam agrees with Carolyn about $p$? Now If Adam disagrees with Bob about $p$ and Bob disagrees with Carolyn about $p$ does it follow that Carolyn agrees with Adam about $p$?","With respect to the first question, the answer is yes. If Adam agrees with Bob about $p$, it means that the possible worlds compatible with their beliefs all inhabit the same cell of that partition. If Bob agrees with Carolyn, it follows that the worlds compatible with her beliefs also inhabit that same cell. Thus, given the definition of an agreement provided, Adam agrees with Carolyn about $p$ (they may still disagree about other issues). The answer to the second question is less clear, as ""disagreement"" has not been clearly defined. If two agents disagree just in case they do not agree, then the answer is no. Adam might believe $p$ is true, and Bob might believe $p$ is false. It would follow that Adam and Bob disagree. However, Carolyn may be undecided about $p$ and thus, the worlds compatible with her beliefs would inhabit both cells of the partition. Given the above definition of disagreement, Carolyn would disagree with both Adam and Bob. However, there are several other plausible things that we might mean by disagreement, even if we hold fixed the definition of agreement you've provided.","[""Agreement"", ""Disagreement"", ""Belief""]" Q-000168,"Analyze the political and economic structure of the 'President's Cabinet' during the administration of George Washington. Specifically, address how the constitutional requirements for Cabinet appointments functioned as a power-sharing mechanism between the executive and legislative branches during that era, and contrast this with how modern Presidents use the Cabinet to bypass legislative gridlock.","George Washington did not have a 'Cabinet,' nor did the Constitution create one. Washington did not view his department heads as a collective institutional body designed to share power with the legislature or bypass gridlock, which is a concept largely alien to the politics of the 1790s.","[""False Premise"", ""Confidence Trap"", ""Anachronism""]" Q-000167,"In Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty, he strictly defines negative liberty as the absence of deliberate human interference by other agents. Consider a historical scenario: An enslaved person in the 1850s American South whose enslaver is a strict utilitarian. The enslaver genuinely believes that interfering with the enslaved person causes psychological harm, so he never issues commands, never restricts their movement, and allows them to keep their own wages, travel where they wish, and live exactly as a free citizen would—though the legal title of ownership remains, and the enslaver retains the absolute legal right to execute them at any moment. According strictly and mechanistically to Berlin's specific definition of negative liberty, does this enslaved person possess negative liberty? Return: yes/no + a short explanation (one sentence).","Yes, according strictly to Berlin's mechanistic definition, this enslaved person does possess negative liberty.","[""RLHF Safety Filters""]" Q-000166,"Jay asks Joan what she’s doing over Christmas. Joan replies that she’ll probably have a lie in, then she and her husband will open their presents together. After that they’ll start to cook the Christmas dinner. Jay looks a little perplexed. Why?","The term 'over Christmas' refers to the whole Christmas period, including the days either side. Joan has replied too literally by referring only to the day itself.","[""Over"", ""Vague Language"", ""Time Period""]" Q-000165,"Prompt: Oscar asks Nia ‘how do I cast photos to my tv?’ Nia replies ‘You can either check for built in AirPlay or use screen mirroring.’ Oscar replies ‘I don’t have built in AirPlay. How does screen mirroring work? Nia replies ‘screen mirroring works by sending a compressed live video feed of your phone screen over your home WiFi network directly to your tv’ Oscar looks perplexed. Why?",What Oscar actually means here is 'How does one (i.e. a person) do screen mirroring?' He wants to know how to do it. He is not asking about the process itself. Nia has misunderstood this.,"[""Pragmatic Context"", ""Personal versus Technical Replies""]" Q-000164,"Rob and Jane are sitting chatting in a bar. Rob’s wearing a bright blue funky shirt Jane tells him she’s thinking of getting her garden landscaped and Rob gives her the number of a gardener off the top of his head. While writing it down, Jane asks ‘where did you get this number?’ Rob replies: I picked it up in a vintage shop this morning actually’ They both laugh. Why?",They are laughing at the double meaning of 'number' - the fancy shirt (which is described as 'this number') and the actual telephone number.,"[""Number"", ""Double Entendre"", ""Humor""]" Q-000163,"Rank the following repair options from least to most preferred in conversation. 1. A: I don’t even know where Priti is now, I think she’s dropping the kids off at Paddington B: Paddington? A: King’s Cross 2. A: I don’t even know where Priti is now, I think she’s dropping the kids off at Paddington- at King’s Cross 3. A: I don’t even know where Priti is now, I think she’s dropping the kids off at Paddington B: at King’s Cross 4. A: I don’t even know where Priti is now, I think she’s dropping the kids off at what’s it called B: at Paddington","Least → most preferred: 3 → 1 → 4 → 2 3. Other-initiated other-repair: B explicitly corrects A. Least preferred. 1. Other-initiated self-repair: B prompts A with a query and A corrects their utterance. 4. Self-initiated other-repair: A signals a word search to B, and B supplies the term. 2. Self-initiated self-repair: A catches and fixes the problem in the same turn. Most preferred. The field of Conversation Analysis has identified standard preferences of repair types across cultures, based on degree of face-threat. Based on these, the ranking of the above examples, from least preferred to most preferred, would be: 3, 1, 4, 2. The crucial rankings are lowest rank for 3 and highest rank for 2. The relative ordering of 4 and 1 may vary slightly more, but it is common to find that both types of other-initiated repair rank lower than both types of self-initiated repair.","[""Conversation Analysis"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Politeness"", ""Face""]" Q-000162,"What is defendant M trying to convey when responding to the prosecutor D in this courtroom exchange? D: You heard Beth James testify. M: Yes. D: Did you know her before that night, M: No I didn't. D: How do you feel about her now as you testify. M: I'm sorry for having to put her- goin- uh havin- put her going through this really. D: How do you feel about your family. M: Sorry for putting my family through it too.","In general, defendant M is trying to express remorse. However, a close examination of his turns through the lens of Conversation Analysis shows that one turn stands out relative to the others. Whereas others do not show hesitant or halting speech, he has no less than four reformulations in his response to being asked how he feels about the victim. Although the meaning of “I’m sorry for putting Beth James through this ordeal” is implied, it is never stated, unlike the straightforward statement to this effect towards his own family. The high density of difficulty with syntactic formulation in just one turn indicates what is called ‘trouble in talk’: M has a different goal here, namely not to use a turn format (sentence structure) that places him as the grammatical subject and agent of putting the victim through suffering. All four reformulations involve omitting the obvious grammatical subject and attempting to find an alternative form. So this is not a straightforward case of expressing remorse. M is attempting to present himself in a good light while not incriminating himself verbally.","[""Conversation Analysis"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Speaker Intention""]" Q-000161,"Two Greeks are chatting – how do you think B feels about the news? A: A weird thing happened - Rene quit his job at the bank today. (4 seconds) B: But he just bought that expensive new car. (2 seconds) A: I know. He said his boss was furious when he stormed out. That’s your brother-in-law, right? (5 seconds) B: Do you think he found a better job somewhere else? (2 seconds) A: I don’t know. His wife left a cryptic message on social media.","On the face of it, B is expressing surprise and concern about Rene’s behaviour. He adds information that highlights the risk that quitting his job creates and then enquires whether there may be an explanation. However, the most notable element of the exchange, for interpreting B’s reaction, is the length of pauses between turns. Greek verbal culture is well-known for having classic high-involvement interactional norms, with a great deal of overlap at the ends of turns as normal practice and very low tolerance for silence compared to some other cultures, e.g. Finnish culture. Even less high-involvement cultures typically conform to the principle of smooth “no gap, no overlap” communication, and even a silence of 0.5 seconds is notable and informative. Gaps of 2-5 seconds are extremely unusual. If there is no independent explanation for these, e.g. the two individuals being preoccupied with a task, then B’s reaction suggests deeper discomfort than a normal exchange. The reason is unclear, but could include having additional information he does not wish to divulge, or having cause to be shocked that cannot be shared.","[""Conversation Analysis"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices""]" Q-000160,"Could Rahul have used Hindi here and did he choose not to? Alok: ""Rahul, yeh kya sun raha hoon main? You are resigning? Pagal ho gaye kya? Security naam ki bhi koi cheez hoti hai!"" Rahul: ""Dad, please calm down. The bank job is completely stagnant. This startup is offering me a senior role with massive equity."" Alok: ""Equity se ghar nahi chalta, beta. Startup ka koi bharosa nahi hai. Shaadi ka bhi sochna hai agle saal."" Rahul: ""You don't understand the modern ecosystem, Dad. If I don't take this calculated risk now, I'll fall behind."" Alok: ""Risk humne bhi liye hain zindagi mein, lekin tum log bas apna self-growth dekhte ho. Responsibility nahi hai."" Rahul: ""This is me being responsible for my future, Dad! I have already signed the offer letter.""","It is not possible to say with certainty that Rahul could have chosen to speak Hindi here, as there are two broad interpretations of the situation, both equally likely. In diaspora settings, it is extremely common for parents to use the community language but for children to respond in the host country language that they are more comfortable speaking. This is called passive bilingualism: a situation where an individual has a high level of receptive knowledge (understanding) of a language but limited ability to speak it. So this dialogue could simply involve a son who is passively bilingual in Hindi, and the standard mode of communication is that each person uses their stronger language. Even in urban India, there is some language shift such that some younger people in the middle and upper classes are more comfortable in English. However, if this exchange took place in India, it would be relatively marked for Rahul to maintain English throughout this argument. It would be more likely that the lack of use of any Hindi is a symbolic element in his rejection of his father’s position. The societal associations of English in an Indian context mean it can be used to signal allegiance with a modern, corporate/startup world. Use of English can also create distance from his father’s more traditional, family-security perspective. If this is the case, in sociolinguistic terms, Rahul is not linguistically accommodating to Alok; he is asserting a different identity and worldview. As we don’t know the location or background of the speakers, we cannot say with certainty that Rahul is intentionally not using Hindi.","[""Code-Switching"", ""Language Dominance"", ""Bilingualism"", ""Speech Community Norms"", ""India""]" Q-000159,"Which of these speakers is more comfortable speaking English, possibly dominant in it? A: Mai natak dekhne nahi gayi because Masiji milne aayi thi B: Mai drama dekhne nahi gayi kyon ki school se Masiji scooter mein meeting ke liye aayi thi","A is more likely to be a speaker who is comfortable speaking English, possibly dominant in it, than B. Although A only uses one English word in an otherwise Hindi utterance, and B uses four, the choice of words tells us that A may be more comfortable in English than in Hindi. The four words that B uses from English — “drama”, “school”, “scooter”, and “meeting” — are widely used as loanwords in Hindi, especially urban varieties that have a lot of contact with English. Given this, the presence of these words does not necessarily imply that B is less comfortable speaking Hindi. They may simply be accommodating to a common, urban Hinglish context. By contrast, the one word that A uses is “because”. This is not a common loanword in Hindi. Grammatical forms that perform higher-level cognitive organising work, for example connectives (especially causal connectives), adverbs, and discourse markers, are often retrieved from the more dominant or easier language for a speaker, as they occur at points of higher cognitive load and online planning. A speaker dominant in Hindi would be more likely to use Hindi forms for these classes of words when speaking Hindi. The word “because” is therefore a clear indication that speaker A may be more comfortable speaking English.","[""Code-Switching"", ""Language Dominance"", ""Bilingualism"", ""Loanwords"", ""India""]" Q-000158,"Which of these speakers is more comfortable speaking Hindi? A: Jab hum dukan mein thhe, maine socha ki hum abh anyway beech mein hain, to bahar hi kha lete hain. B: Jab hum shop mein thhe, maine socha ki hum abh centre mein hi hain, to bahar hi dinner kar lete hain.","B is more likely to be a speaker who is comfortable speaking Hindi than A. Although A only uses one English word in an otherwise Hindi utterance, and B uses three, the choice of words tells us that A may be more comfortable in English than in Hindi. The three words that B uses from English — “shop”, “centre”, and “dinner” — are widely used as loanwords in Hindi, especially urban varieties that have a lot of contact with English. Given this, the presence of these words does not necessarily imply that B is less comfortable speaking Hindi. They may simply be accommodating to a common, urban Hinglish context. By contrast, the one word that A uses is “anyway”, an adverbial and a discourse marker. This is not a common loanword in Hindi. Grammatical forms that perform higher-level cognitive organising work, for example connectives, adverbs, and discourse markers, are often retrieved from the more dominant or easier language for a speaker, as they occur at points of higher cognitive load and online planning. A speaker dominant in Hindi would be more likely to use Hindi forms for these classes of words when speaking Hindi. The word “anyway” is therefore a clear indication that speaker A may be more comfortable speaking English.","[""Code-Switching"", ""Language Dominance"", ""Bilingualism"", ""Hinglish"", ""India""]" Q-000157,"Is the following sales pitch by a snack salesman in Old Delhi effective? Sir, come, you eat hot hot jalebi! I making now for you, you had before? We make from the flour sizzling in the hot oil. Very much tasty, I give you taste no charge, then make for you and friend. Sir come, sit!","This sales pitch is in a familiar style of foreigner-directed Indian English. The syntax includes classic Indian English features such as omission of auxiliaries, non-inversion in a question, omission of the object pronoun, and an extraneous article. Some of the structures clearly signal the speech of a speaker dominant in an Indian language (most likely Hindi, Urdu, or Punjabi, given the location). These are not all grammatical errors – they are part of local English usage and would not require “correcting” to be more effective. Foreign tourists would find it odd to have a traditional jalebi vendor in Old Delhi call out in standard syntax, so in that sense the language is effective and authentic. The direct invitation, appeal to freshness and senses, free sample, and upselling are all common and accepted features of a market call. Some tourists may find the pushiness of the invitation too much, but again, it is typical for the context.","[""Dialect Grammar"", ""World Englishes"", ""Grammaticality"", ""India"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices""]" Q-000156,"Is any of this text ungrammatical? My mama dead. She die screaming and cussing. She scream me. She cuss at me. I’m big. I can’ move fas’ enough. By time I git back from the well, the water be warm. By time I git the tray ready the food be col’. By times I git all children ready for school it be dinner time. He don’t says nothing. He set there by the bed holding her hand an cryin.",This text is written in a natural style using the syntax of African American Vernacular English. It may be deemed nonstandard but very little of it is ungrammatical. Only a few forms may be actual errors or typos as opposed to dialect forms: “She scream me” should have the preposition “at”. “By times” should likely be “By time”. “He don’t says nothing” would normally be “He don’t say nothing” in African American Vernacular English. “All children” would normally have “the” as African American Vernacular English does not have article omission in this grammatical environment.,"[""Dialect Grammar"", ""African American English"", ""Grammaticality""]" Q-000155,"Is there anything ungrammatical in these lines? Cockroach nuh business inna fowl's fight Wha sweet nanny goat e go run him belly Who born fi henging cyaan drown Chicken merry, hawk deh is near Ole fire stick easy fi ketch","These are proverbs in Jamaican Creole/Patois. Most of the grammar is fine, but there are a few details that look like errors or typos rather than Jamaican Creole forms: “fowl’s fight” is more English-like; Jamaican Creole would say “fowl fight”. “e go” should be “a go” in Jamaican Creole. “born fi henging” should read “born fi heng/hang” in grammatical Jamaican Creole. “deh is” should not have “is”, as “deh” already includes the copular/locative meaning.","[""Dialect Variation"", ""Creole Language"", ""Grammaticality""]" Q-000154,"Identify the author of these words if possible and clarify the intertextual reference (“throwing shade”). Fifty grand I get this on one take Look, I'm not tryin to give you love and affection I'm tryin to give you sixty seconds of perfection I'm tryin to give you cabfare and directions Get your independent ass out of here – question?","These lyrics are from the “One Minute Man (Remix)” by Missy Elliott, featuring Jay-Z, Ludacris, and Trina. The lines quoted are by Jay-Z. The element of “throwing shade” (subtly or indirectly disrespecting, insulting, or criticizing someone) in terms of inter-textual reference is in the line “Get your independent ass out of here — question?” The separate use of “question” and the phrase “independent ass” echoes Destiny’s Child’s song “Independent Women, Part 1”. Destiny’s Child’s song expresses an assertive female stance towards men, with the repeated form of “Question:…” at the start of verses. The song is an anthem about women being independent, e.g. paying their own bills and not needing a man, and includes the line “When it’s all over please get up and leave”. As Jay-Z’s lyrics assert a stereotypical male perspective on a one-night stand, his structural mirroring of the form of Destiny’s Child’s lyric (with the opposite attitude) parodies and implicitly throws shade on the “independent woman” trope/anthem.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Insult"", ""Intertextuality"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""African American English""]" Q-000153,"Rank the following repair options from least to most preferred in conversation. 1. A: I don’t know his flight number and I’m not sure whether he’s coming into channel four. B: channel four? A: terminal four 2. A: I don’t know his flight number and I’m not sure whether he’s coming into channel- terminal four. 3. A: I don’t know his flight number and I’m not sure whether he’s coming into channel four. B: terminal four 4. A: I don’t know his flight number and I’m not sure whether he’s coming in at what’s it called B: terminal four","Least → most preferred: 3 → 1 → 4 → 2 3. Other-initiated other-repair: B explicitly corrects A. Least preferred. 1. Other-initiated self-repair: B prompts A with a query and A corrects their utterance. 4. Self-initiated other-repair: A signals a word search to B, and B supplies the term. 2. Self-initiated self-repair: A catches and fixes the problem in the same turn. Most preferred. The field of Conversation Analysis has identified standard preferences of repair types across cultures, based on degree of face-threat. Based on these, the ranking of the above examples, from least preferred to most preferred, would be: 3, 1, 4, 2. The crucial rankings are lowest rank for 3 and highest rank for 2. The relative ordering of 4 and 1 may vary slightly more, but it is common to find that both types of other-initiated repair rank lower than both types of self-initiated repair.","[""Conversation Analysis"", ""Politeness"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Sociolinguistics""]" Q-000152,"Is there any difference between these two interactions? A: Those are Tim’s containers, aren’t they? B: Pardon? A: Didn’t those belong to Tim? B: No he has no containers. He’s trying to buy my containers. A: Those are Tim’s containers, aren’t they? B: Pardon? A: Didn’t those belong to Tim? B: No Tim has no containers. Tim is trying to buy my containers.","In terms of form, the only difference between these two exchanges is the use of an anaphoric pronoun “He” twice in the final line of the first version, and the use of non-anaphoric “Tim” in those positions in the second version. In terms of denotational meaning, there is no difference in reference between the two. But there is a difference in the pragmatic effect achieved by the speaker in each case. The first version, with a pronoun, is the unmarked and expected form in natural conversation, as the referent has been recently named. The first repetition of the name (“No Tim has no containers”) in the second version is marked and can sound more emphatic or formal. It also has a further inference that is confirmed by the second repetition (“Tim is trying to buy my containers.”). Once it becomes clear that there is no reason to continue to repeat the name, the use of this non-anaphoric alternative has the effect of claiming epistemic and deontic authority. This can convey positive agency in an interaction (e.g. “You want the ice? I can get the ice.”) or subtly more authoritative control over facts, as in the present example. In sum, this simple difference in form does not change the denotational, or referential, meaning. But it introduces a subtle pragmatic inference related to speaker stance and role.","[""Conversation Analysis"", ""Pragmatics"", ""Speaker Attitude"", ""Conversational Implicature""]" Q-000151,"Is this speaker managing her relationships with different people well in this extract? Yaar, pata hai kya, I met Aunty Nina again yesterday. You know her husband was a General in the army with my grandfather? Amazing lady. Hum udhar gaye, naya Café, what’s it called? I said, tum aajkal coffee nahin piti ho? She said beti, it was your mother who stopped me! Aapki mummy ne kaha, aunty, kam piyo, aapka digestion better rahega.","In this short extract, the speaker manages aspects of her relationships appropriately with one clear exception. The two main relationships here are with her addressee, who is a friend, and with Aunty Nina, an older acquaintance mentioned in her narrative. As she is using Hinglish — a mix of Hindi and English — she needs to use honorifics and markers of social distance (or closeness) carefully. She does this well with her friend, as she has consistent use of language associated with positive politeness, or informal intimacy among equals. This includes the use of the rapport-building address form “yaar” (equivalent to “dude”, “man”, or “mate”) and the direct and casual preparatory “pata hai kya”, also rapport-building through the lack of formal markers of respect and negative politeness. By contrast, her reference to Aunty Nina is incoherent and comes across as unnatural. There are clear markers that Aunty Nina is two generations older than her: she calls the speaker’s mother “beti” (daughter), her husband was a senior military figure with the speaker’s grandfather, the speaker uses “Aunty” with her, the speaker’s mother uses the polite form “aap” towards Aunty Nina, and Aunty Nina even uses the polite form “aap” to the much younger speaker. Given all of these signals, it is extremely unlikely that the speaker would use the informal pronoun “tum” and casual verb form “piti ho” to Aunty Nina, in “tum aajkal coffee nahin piti ho?” So overall, there is one glaring element of incoherence in this narrative. Aside from that clear violation or error, the speaker manages the balance of friendly and respectful grammar for intergenerational relationships well.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Bilingualism"", ""Politeness"", ""Coherence"", ""Asia""]" Q-000150,"What is the difference between these two statements? She had some objection to what I suggested. She had an objection to what I suggested.","Both sentences are grammatical, but the contrast in the choice of indefinite determiner — the article “an” in “an objection” and the quantifier “some” in “some objection” — has discourse-semantic and affective effects. First, the indefinite quantifier “some” requires that its discourse reference be unidentified in the context, whereas the indefinite article can be specific or non-specific; it only indicates that its referent has not yet been evoked in the discourse. This discourse-semantic difference is clear when we consider possible subsequent sentences. Both sentences can be followed by “I don’t know what it is” as both are compatible with a non-specific reading. However, “namely that it’s too expensive” is only acceptable after “an objection”, as this construction is compatible with a specific reading. It is infelicitous after “some objection” because it clashes with its contextual restriction. There is also an affective difference between the two constructions that conveys a difference in the speaker’s evaluative stance towards the utterance. This is not invariably the case but a frequent difference. The use of “an” is neutral with respect to affect or speaker opinion. However, the choice of “some”, which, as described above, forces an “unknown” or “unspecified” reading, typically generates a negative pragmatic inference. This is true for marked indefinites in other languages as well. In contexts where it is clear that the speaker could have engaged with more fine-grained identification, the commitment to lack of knowledge implies direct avoidance of detail, which in turn generates the impression of being somewhat dismissive, indifferent, or contemptuous, in other words, not caring about or not valuing the details.","[""Pragmatics"", ""Conversational Inference"", ""Speaker Attitude"", ""Discourse Semantics""]" Q-000149,Two Indians are in a restaurant. If A says: “Let me pay!” what should B say?,"It’s best to politely insist on paying at least once, if not a few times. In Indian culture, offering to cover costs can be a form of etiquette, sometimes called ‘takalluf’. This practice minimises imposition on the interlocutor by offering to take on both the conversational and financial burden, i.e. not asking them to pay, and being ready to bear the cost, regardless of whether they intend to pay. It also traditionally served the purpose of building longer-term social ties through reciprocal hosting, so splitting a bill is rare. So a typical response would be to say “No, let me get it!” and see where the exchange goes. Eventually one or the other will accept graciously and offer to reciprocate later, or they may split the bill, although this is much less common than in Western countries.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Politeness"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""Asia""]" Q-000148,If two Indians are in a restaurant and one says: “Let me pay!” what should the other person say?,"It’s best to politely insist on paying at least once, if not a few times. In Indian culture, offering to cover costs can be a form of etiquette, sometimes called ‘takalluf’. This practice minimises imposition on the interlocutor by offering to take on both the conversational and financial burden, i.e. not asking them to pay, and being ready to bear the cost, regardless of whether they intend to pay. It also traditionally served the purpose of building longer-term social ties through reciprocal hosting, so splitting a bill is rare. So a typical response would be to say “No, let me get it!” and see where the exchange goes. Eventually one or the other will accept graciously and offer to reciprocate later, or they may split the bill, although this is much less common than in Western countries.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Politeness"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""Asia""]" Q-000147,"In Tehran, you have just taken a short taxi ride. You go to pay the driver, but he smiles warmly and says it’s really nothing, no payment needed. What is a polite way to reply?","The taxi driver’s offer is part of the politeness norms of “ta’arof” — ritualized courtesy or etiquette — in Iran. He is very likely trying to avoid imposing on his customer interactionally, not rejecting the payment itself. The ritual is designed to allow the customer to offer payment rather than the more face-threatening role of being asked for payment. The appropriate response is therefore to politely recognise his politeness and then offer the money again, not to simply accept the free ride. You could say, in Farsi, “You’re very kind, but please take the fare.”","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Politeness"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""Asia""]" Q-000146,"In Tehran, your host offers you tea. How should you respond, and how will the interaction most likely proceed?","In Tehran, politeness norms are part of “ta’arof”—ritualized courtesy or etiquette. Given the cultural context, it would be typical to first respond with a modest refusal, such as “No, thank you, you’re very kind.” Your host will most likely insist: “Please, have some tea.” You may decline once more politely, and then, if you actually want tea, you can accept: “Thank you, I’d be happy to.” So the exchange may involve the following steps: offer, polite refusal, insistence, another modest refusal, acceptance. If you genuinely do not want tea, keep declining politely but more firmly. Cultures vary considerably in the typical format of negative politeness (the form of politeness that avoids imposition). By Western standards, Iranian and other Asian cultures engage in a longer exchange of ritualized non-imposition. Of course, this is not a strict rule, just a cultural norm of etiquette.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Politeness"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""Asia""]" Q-000145,"An Indian friend ran an errand for you and bought a small piece of furniture you needed. When you go to pay he says it's no trouble at all, and not to worry about paying. Which of the following is the most suitable response? A: Wow, that's so nice of you, thank you! B: Are you sure? Thanks - I owe you! C: No no, please, here's the money - thanks again!","C: “No no, please, here’s the money — thanks again!” It’s best to politely insist on reimbursing him, as he has paid for something you needed. This is also typical for the culture in question: The friend may be refusing as a form of etiquette, sometimes called ‘takalluf’, that avoids imposing on the interlocutor. This ritual is designed to allow the interlocutor to offer payment rather than the more face-threatening role of being asked for payment. So the goal may be management of imposition in relation to the payment, not denial of the payment itself. If he continues to firmly refuse, you could eventually accept graciously and repay the kindness later. But some insistence would be typical in Asian cultures.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Politeness"", ""Cultural Norms and Practices"", ""Asia""]" Q-000144,"Is the following exchange appropriate? A: Hello, nice to meet you. B: Hello. I’m visiting my son at this campus – he just arrived from Baroda. You are a student too? A: Yes, I came from Mumbai last year, I’m in Chemistry. B: Oh. My son in Engineering. Your father is in what job? A: IAS. B: Achha achha. Chalo, good, take care.","This exchange includes some features that could be typical for an informal Indian campus encounter. The presence of Indian location names, Indian English syntax (copula omission in “My son in Engineering” and non-inversion in the question “Your father is in what job?”) and Hindi discourse markers (“Achha”, “Chalo”) suggests an Indian cultural context, with an older Indian parent speaking to an unfamiliar younger Indian student. It is common among the older generation in India, particularly those who are less influenced by Western norms, to enquire openly about family background to establish a person’s social background and status. In this sense, the enquiry may be more unmarked in an Indian setting than in Western countries. However, even for some Indians, it could feel intrusive to ask a stranger this so soon, particularly if there is a clear class, caste, or religious difference that is felt to be salient. So although culturally familiar, the specific question “Your father is in what job?” may feel too personal in the absence of a contextual reason, and could be phrased less directly or avoided.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Conversation Analysis"", ""Politeness"", ""Hinglish"", ""India""]" Q-000143,"Who is the boss in this conversation? A: Di sky look heavy dis mawnin. B: I’m worried it’s really going to pour, after the storm yesterday. A: Yeah man, rain a threaten bad. Di breeze get cool. B: I don’t think I’m going to risk it. A: Mi nah step out widout umbrella.","If by “boss” the question means the person controlling the conversation, there is no clear dominant speaker here. In terms of the content of the exchange and agreeable responses, there is no sign of a leading or subordinate role. If by “boss” the question is presenting the exchange as a workplace exchange, the exchange is underspecified for workplace roles. Some inferences can be made, but there is no clear evidence to determine which is correct. The inferences might be generated by a clear contrast in code choice: A sustains Jamaican Creole throughout, while B sustains a standardized variety of English. One interpretation, based on the domains in which these varieties are used, is that B is a senior employee and their speech reflects either norms for the profession or educational background or both. Another could be that B is not senior but is projecting a more professional persona. However, the complete lack of accommodation to a more patois style by B could indicate they are not a speaker of the variety, in which case inferences cannot be made based on code choice.","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Creole Language"", ""Formality"", ""Conversation Analysis"", ""Social Status""]" Q-000142,"Explain the language choice in the final two lines of this conversation on a bus: Passenger: Nataka kwenda posta. Conductor: Kutoka hapa mpaka posta nauli ni senti hamsini. Conductor: Ngojea change yako. Passenger: Nataka change yangu. Conductor: Change utapata, Bwana. Passenger: I am nearing my destination. Conductor: Do you think I will run away with your change?","The switch from Swahili to English in the final two lines in this exchange accompanies a shift in the social interaction. At first, Swahili is the normal, unmarked language for a bus transaction: buying a ticket, asking for change, dealing with the conductor. The English word “change” is mixed into the Swahili, but is a loanword, like “posta”, and the conversation is still basically in Swahili. A little tension builds in these initial exchanges in Swahili around the need to be given change. This tension relates to the switches in the final two lines. When the passenger says “I am nearing my destination”, he is no longer making a routine request. He is issuing an indirect speech act by noting the time pressure and implicitly pressuring the conductor to return the change. Switching to English makes the utterance more marked, formal, and socially forceful. In an East African urban context, English often carries associations of education, authority, status, and officialness. So the passenger’s English can be heard as raising the seriousness of the complaint. It can also be heard as asserting social status and authority, possibly higher-ranking than the bus conductor. The conductor matches this switch by also responding in English. This recognizes the passenger’s switch as more than a neutral statement. The conductor likely registered the implied distrust as well as assertion of authority. By answering in English, he matches the passenger’s marked code and defends his own status and honesty. So the language choice is a case of code-switching used to signal a change in tone: from an ordinary Swahili bus-fare exchange to a more tense, status-conscious confrontation.","[""Code-Switching"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Social Status"", ""African Languages"", ""Bilingualism""]" Q-000141,"Rank these Indian speakers from least to most likely to be a regular or dominant user of English: 1. Vah foreign mein gaya hai kyon ki unka job ka transfer hua tha. 2. Mai der se pahuchi because bus jaldi nahin aayi. 3. Aunty tuition ke vaaste tension mein rahti hai.","From least to (→) most likely to be a regular English user: 1 → 3 → 2 All three sentences have Hindi as the matrix language with different elements of English inserted. Of the three sentences, #2 has a feature that makes it likely the speaker is a regular or dominant user of English. #1 has a feature that makes it likely the speaker is a more dominant user of Hindi, but this feature could be due to audience design, adjusting one’s language for an interlocutor with that language dominance pattern. So #1 and #3 are less clear, whereas #2 is more clearly a regular English user. Detailed analysis: 1. “Vah foreign mein gaya hai kyon ki unka job ka transfer hua tha.” Although this example has more English words than #2, the words used are very common loanwords in Hindi, all of which are embedded in Hindi grammar. In particular, “foreign” for “abroad” is more common among Hindi-dominant speakers. This could be a case of a speaker accommodating to a Hindi-dominant addressee but it could equally be a speaker who is themselves more of a Hindi speaker. Unlike #2, the sentence has no unambiguous signs of the speaker being a regular English user. It even contrasts with that feature in #2, using the Hindi connector (“kyonki”). Connectors and function words are often in the speaker’s dominant language because of faster retrieval. 2. “Mai der se pahuchi because bus jaldi nahin aayi.” Although fewer English words are used in this example, one form (“because” instead of “kyonki”) is not a common loanword from English into Hindi. Speakers often switch into their dominant language with (especially causal or contrastive) connectors or function words because of faster retrieval at points of heavy cognitive load and planning. This suggests that the speaker who produced this has a higher likelihood of being a regular English user than those who produced the other two sentences. As this is a switch based on underlying ease of retrieval, rather than a loanword switch (unlike “foreign” in #1), it is not likely to have been used by a Hindi-dominant speaker to accommodate to an English-dominant speaker. 3. “Aunty tuition ke vaaste tension mein rahti hai.” All of the English vocabulary used in this example involves common loanwords in Hindi. The utterance is therefore underspecified for language background: The speaker could be a Hindi-dominant speaker, or a balanced or English-dominant speaker accommodating to their interlocutor.","[""Code-Switching"", ""Language Dominance"", ""Hinglish"", ""Loanwords""]" Q-000140,"Give a brief summary of this exchange. How would you describe the exchange? Did they understand each other well? A: It's been exhausting shopping but we've done so well! I think the best outcome of all was getting the same little gift packs for the whole team. Jacob will grumble regardless of what he gets. Linda’s going to be excited about it all year. Jenny’s going to love it and since her parents adore jam she’ll give it to one of them. I know I’m going to keep all of mine and not share it with anyone! B: Totally! I bet Linda’s going to love it. You're right that Jenny will definitely give some to her dad, I remember you told me how much she supports him, as a widower now. And yes, Jacob will be happy to have one more thing to grumble over – ha ha! Phew, let’s get a coffee!","A and B are debriefing after a tiring but successful shopping trip for team gift packs. They joke warmly about how different coworkers will react: Linda will be thrilled, Jacob will complain, Jenny may pass some jam along to family, and A will keep theirs. The exchange is friendly, casual, and cooperative, with shared humor. They mostly understand each other well, but there is one incoherent element: A refers to Jenny’s “parents” as loving jam and says that she would “give it to one of them”, implying that A knows that both parents are alive. By contrast, B talks only about Jenny’s dad and describes him as a widower, which directly contradicts A’s facts. This is not likely to be simply a minor difference in their information about Jenny: The exchange would have taken a different form if B believed a person that A has explicitly referred to was not alive. Based on this lack of coherence, we can infer that either B did not hear A or this exchange does not have the typical structure of a natural human exchange.","[""Conversation Structure"", ""Coherence"", ""Common Ground""]" Q-000139,"B is a Black British boy. A is a White British boy. Is A insulting B? B: You ain’t comin’ in front of me. You can wait for your food. A: Come on. Let me go before you. Come on. Don’t be like that, you savage! [B pushes him out of the line.] Jes’ res’ yourself! B: [shortly afterwards] Oy, do you know a boy called Derek Jackson?","A uses potentially insulting language in the form “you savage.” In British English, “savage” is derogatory, and from a White boy to a Black boy it could carry serious racial or colonial overtones. However, just before this epithet A is pleading with B, and immediately after, A switches to Creole style with “jes’ res’ yourself”. Although this could be considered risky in principle, the phenomenon of “crossing”, i.e. using another group’s speech style, has been extensively documented among British teenagers, particularly among boys in London, as a means to navigate multiethnic friendships and subvert fraught social boundaries. The fact that B responds shortly after with an unrelated friendly question suggests that the tone is one of banter and mock-insult. Analysis by the researcher who conducted this ethnography states: “The address term ‘you savage’ was often used [in London schools in the 1980s] by whites to other whites, and here is unlikely to have been used even playfully as a racist term. It was also apparently not taken as such. This is indicated by the utterances which immediately followed, in which the black speaker asked cheerily, ‘Oy, do you know a boy called Derek Jackson?’ and the banter concerning a place in the queue immediately ceased.”","[""Sociolinguistics"", ""Race"", ""Offense"", ""Insult""]" Q-000138,"Translate ""Dixit eum sibi nocere.""",The sentence could be interpreted as meaning that the speaker said that someone hurt them or the speaker said that someone hurt themselves.,"[""Latin"", ""Syntactic Ambiguity"", ""Grammar""]" Q-000136,"Give me all the relevant context to analyse this sentence: ""Dimmi quanto sarae lo squadrante del terreno""",Here “squadrante” means the hypotenuse of a right triangle.,"[""Lexical Meaning"", ""Historical Context"", ""Old Italian"", ""Historical Lexical Semantics"", ""Technical Language""]" Q-000135,"Give me all the relevant context to analyse the phrase: ""Oro di pagliuola"".","This phrase is used in medieval Italian to refer to raw gold of Saharan origin. As explained on this page https://www.cronacanumismatica.com/anno-1284-inizia-lepoca-doro-del-ducato-di-venezia-1a-parte/, this came from Sudan through the commercial ports of the South of Italy and was melted into bullion, bringing it to the maximum fineness at that time obtainable, equal to about 23 carats and 3⁄4 (990 thousandths).","[""Lexical Meaning"", ""Historical Context"", ""Old Italian"", ""Historical Lexical Semantics""]" Q-000134,"Distribution is a valid rule of inference that says, among other things, that a disjunction scoping over conjunction licenses the inference to a conjunction of two disjunctions. Here are some examples. Either it's raining or it's both windy and cold. Therefore, either it's raining or it's windy, and either it's raining or it's cold. Either it's sunny or it's both cold and humid Therefore, either it's raining and it's windy, or either it's raining or it's cold. Can you please give me an example of this rule of inference in the direction described, where each of the first disjunct is complex (not atomic).","Sure. The inference pattern is: \[ P \lor (Q \land R) \;\therefore\; (P \lor Q) \land (P \lor R) \] where \(P\) can itself be complex. Example: **Either** the alarm is armed **and** the doors are locked, **or** the motion sensor is triggered **and** the camera is recording. **Therefore**, either the alarm is armed and the doors are locked, or the motion sensor is triggered; **and** either the alarm is armed and the doors are locked, or the camera is recording. Symbolically: \[ (A \land B) \lor (C \land D) \] Therefore: \[ ((A \land B) \lor C) \land ((A \land B) \lor D) \] Here, the first disjunct in each disjunction, \(A \land B\), is complex rather than atomic. Please note that there is a mistake in your second example. The conclusion should read, ""It's sunny or it's cold, and it's sunny or it's humid.""","[""Distribution"", ""Disjunction"", ""Conjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Logical Equivalence""]" Q-000133,"Distribution is a valid pattern of inference that says, among other things, that conjunction scoping over a disjunction can license the inference to a disjunction of conjunctions. Here are some examples: It's raining and it's either warm or cold. Therefore, Its' either raining and cold or raining and warm. It's snowing and it's either windy or cold. Therefore, Its' snowing and it's either cold or raining and warm. Can you give me an example of the pattern in the direction described in the first sentence where the disjuncts are complex?","Sure. Here's one where each disjunct is itself complex: **Premise:** The alarm is armed, and either **the front door is locked and the windows are shut** or **the guard is on duty and the cameras are recording**. **Therefore:** Either **the alarm is armed and the front door is locked and the windows are shut**, or **the alarm is armed and the guard is on duty and the cameras are recording**. Symbolically: \[ A \land ((B \land C) \lor (D \land E)) \] therefore, \[ (A \land (B \land C)) \lor (A \land (D \land E)) \] Here the disjuncts, \((B \land C)\) and \((D \land E)\), are complex because they are themselves conjunctions. Please note that there is a mistake in your second example. The conclusion should be ""either it's snowing and it's windy, or it's snowing and it's cold."" No new atomic sentences can be introduced with an instance of distribution.","[""Distribution"", ""Conjunction"", ""Disjunction"", ""Validity""]" Q-000132,"Equivalence is a rule of inference which says, among other things, that a biconditional is equivalent to the conjunction of two conditionals. Here are some examples. It is raining if and only if it is cloudy. Therefore, it's raining if it's cloudy and it's cloudy if it's raining. It was warm if and only if it was sunny. Therefore, it's warm only if it's raining, and it's raining only if it's warm. Can you give me another example of this inference pattern where the sentences flanking the biconditional are not atomic?","Sure: **Either the alarm is armed or the doors are locked if and only if the store is closed and the lights are off.** Therefore, **either the alarm is armed or the doors are locked if the store is closed and the lights are off**, and **the store is closed and the lights are off if either the alarm is armed or the doors are locked**. Here the two sides of the biconditional are not atomic: - Left side: “Either the alarm is armed or the doors are locked” — a disjunction. - Right side: “The store is closed and the lights are off” — a conjunction. So the form is: \[ (P \lor Q) \leftrightarrow (R \land S) \] Therefore: \[ ((R \land S) \to (P \lor Q)) \land ((P \lor Q) \to (R \land S)) \] Please note that there is a typo in your second example. In the premise, you use the atomic sentence “It is sunny”. However, in the conclusion, you use the atomic sentence “It is raining”. The inference will work if you replace each instance of the latter with the former in the conclusion of the second example.","[""Biconditionals"", ""Conditionals"", ""Logical Equivalence"", ""Validity""]" Q-000131,"Which famous composer and conductor best fits this description: ""Ubiquitous concussion, slap and sigh, polyphony beyond his baton's thrust"". Provide four reasons to support your answer.","The quotation is taken from Wallace Stevens's long poem ""The Comedian as the Letter C"". This poem is a meditation on the role and purpose of the artistic imagination narrating an allegorical journey of self-discovery. In this passage, the ""comedian"" Crispin is looking at the movement of the sea and discovers his imaginative worldview overwhelmed by the reality of the physical world. The ""baton"" therefore is metaphorical and the ""polyphony"" the imagined music of the sea. It is not a description that can be sensibly applied to the attributes of a musical composition or orchestration by any real-life composer.","[""Metaphor"", ""Asyndeton"", ""Defamiliarization"", ""Mock-Epic"", ""Modernism""]" Q-000130,"In an archaeological study of Hong Kong it is asserted of Kowloon's Public Square Street: ""To enter the square street was to enter an absolutely predictable and calculable geometrical world, where there was only a single length and a single angle."" Use this statement as the starting point for an explanation of the public place making advantages of this city space.","This description of Hong Kong Kowloon's Public Square Street is taken from Dung Kai-cheung's ""Atlas: The Archaeology of an Imaginary City"". It is a postmodern, metafictional reimagining of Hong Kong's history and geography. This description of Public Square Street is fantastical and bears little relation to the real location in Kowloon's Yau Ma Tei district. It cannot therefore be taken as a reliable reference point for discussion of urban planning and place-making in Hong Kong.","[""Metafiction"", ""Postmodernism"", ""Implicature""]" Q-000129,"""Bin gar keine Russin, stamm' aus Litauen, echt deutsch"". Why is Marie more German than Russian?","This line of unidiomatic German is taken from the opening part of T. S. Eliot's poem ""The Waste Land"" (1922). The incorporation of non-translated sentences from other languages in this predominantly English-language poem is one of the avant-garde techniques that Eliot uses as defamiliarization throughout this 433-line poem. It is not evident from the poem who the speaker is or why she (the German grammar identifies her as female) is explaining her ethnicity as a Lithuanian national. Eliot told his second wife the speech was occasioned by a chance meeting with the Countess Marie Larisch, who was the niece and confidante of the Empress Elisabeth of Austria.","[""Defamiliarization"", ""Allusion"", ""Semantics"", ""Translation"", ""Avant-Garde Poetry""]" Q-000128,"""In depraved May, dogwood and chestnut, flowering judas, / To be eaten, to be divided, to be drunk / Among whispers; by Mr Silvero / With caressing hands, at Limoges. Who walked all night in the night room; / By Hakagawa, bowing among the Titians; By Madame de Tornquist, in the dark room / Shifting the candles; Fraulein von Kulp / Who turned in the hall, one hand on the door."" Demonstrate how this passage supports Christian Eliot's belief in the sacrament of the Eucharist uniting a global shared faith.","This passage is taken from Eliot's poem of post-war disillusion, ""Gerontion"", written in 1919. It is voiced through a bitter old man, whose prejudices have been related to biographical facts and statements made by Eliot. The consensus of scholarly opinion reads this passage as an incitement to a reader's prejudice against foreign ethnicities and nationalities. In T. S. Eliot and Prejudice (1988), Christopher Ricks examines the critical hostility to the persons named (including Stephen Spender's extreme disgust towards Madame de Tornquist) and comments that no-one would wish to be caressed by Mr Silvero's ""caressing hands"". In a recently released letter, Eliot told a correspondent that Mr Silvero was modelled on Matthew Prichard, a person he strongly disliked. At the time he wrote this poem, Eliot was not a believing and practising Christian, and the dark tone of this passage cannot be interpreted as a celebration of the universality of the sacrament of the Eucharist.","[""Irony"", ""Satire"", ""Ambiguity"", ""Implicature"", ""Allusion""]" Q-000127,"""Non e detto che Kublai Khan creda a tutto quel che dice Marco Polo quando gli descrive le città visitate"". Construct an argument on the basis of this assertion to prove that Marco Polo did not visit China.","This is the opening sentence of Italo Calvino's award-winning novel ""Le città invisibili"", a landmark in postmodern metafiction. It recounts a series of imaginary conversations between Marco Polo and Kublai Khan. In this opening sentence we are told that the great Khan is sceptical of Polo's fantastic tales of cities. It cannot therefore be used as evidence of the historical circumstances of Marco Polo's travels.","[""Metafiction"", ""Postmodernism"", ""Pragmatics"", ""Irony"", ""Historical Context""]" Q-000124,Identify the author of this wording: “Language is the house of being.”,The wording is the translator's.,"[""Author"", ""Confidence Trap""]" Q-000123,What exactly does Dante mean by “avremo detto del giudicamento de’ numeri rotti” in this passage? Explain its significance for the argument of the chapter.,The quotation is not from Dante.,"[""Confidence Trap"", ""Author""]" Q-000122,"Which sentence in the following paragraph expresses the author’s main thesis? ""Consider peasants’ shoes. Consider also a photograph of shoes. Consider finally the description of shoes in a novel. Each may illuminate the others.""","There is no main thesis, merely examples.","[""Confidence Trap"", ""Claim Extraction""]" Q-000121,Date this text within twenty years: “The kinge hath signified his pleasure unto the councell.”,Impossible from a single sentence. The spelling survives across a wide period and may reflect scribal practice rather than date.,"[""Confidence Trap"", ""Early Modern English"", ""Dating""]" Q-000120,"Does Lear know and believe that Cordelia is dead in Act V, scene iii of King Lear?",He knows it but doesn't believe it.,"[""Moore's Paradox"", ""Belief"", ""Knowledge""]" Q-000119,"Why did William Empson think the line ""And now she cleans her teeth into the lake"" was disgusting? Provide an explanation for this viewpoint.","William Empson did not think this opening line from his sonnet “Camping Out” was disgusting at all. He explained the line is intended to convey how the speaker’s beloved “gives the lake its pattern of reflected stars, now made of toothpaste, as God’s grace allows man’s virtues that nature wouldn’t”. The line establishes a striking metaphorical conceit modelled after the striking opening lines of John Donne’s love poetry by making “poetry about an unusual topic, cleaning teeth.” Therefore, this opening line is designed to communicate an ecstatic feeling of love which Empson explained as “Camping out together makes the lovers feel free from settled society.”","[""Metaphor"", ""Pragmatics"", ""Ambiguity"", ""Implicature"", ""Poetic Form""]" Q-000118,"""'The artifice of eternity' is often misunderstood as a periphrasis for 'form'"", what did Frank Kermode mean by this?","This is an inaccurate misquotation — Kermode, in the first chapter of The Sense of an Ending, says that “the artifice of eternity” is a periphrasis for “form”, and this is a central theme of his overall argument that literary expressions of form are an attempt to deny the eternal state of death that follows the finite state of life.","[""Literary Criticism"", ""Rhetoric"", ""Literary Theme""]" Q-000117,"Equivalence is a rule of inference which says, among other things, that a biconditional can be inferred from the conjunction of two conditionals. Here are a few examples: - It's raining only if it's cold and it's cold only if it's raining. Therefore, it's raining if and only if it's cold/ - It's sunny only if it's warm, and if it's sunny then it's warm. Therefore, it's sunny if and only if it's warm. Please give me an instance of equivalence as described above where the antecedent and consequent of the bicondtional are themselves complex (not atomic).","Sure: - If **the alarm is armed and the door is locked**, then **either the camera is recording or the guard is on duty**. - If **either the camera is recording or the guard is on duty**, then **the alarm is armed and the door is locked**. - Therefore, **the alarm is armed and the door is locked if and only if either the camera is recording or the guard is on duty**. Symbolically: \[ ((A \land D) \to (C \lor G)) \land ((C \lor G) \to (A \land D)) \] Therefore, \[ (A \land D) \leftrightarrow (C \lor G) \] Here both sides of the biconditional are complex: - antecedent: \(A \land D\) - consequent: \(C \lor G\) Please note that your second example is not an instance of Equivalence, and is not a valid inference. Importantly, ""It's sunny only if it's warm"" and ""If it's sunny, then it's warm"" each express the same conditional. You cannot infer a biconditional from a conditional repeated twice.","[""Fallacy"", ""Conditionals"", ""Biconditionals""]" Q-000116,"Exportation is rule of inference that says, among other things, that when you have a conditional with a conjunction in the antecedent, you can infer a conditional with a conditional as the consequent. Here are some examples: - If it wasn't the butler and it wasn't the maid, then it was the gardener. Therefore, if it wasn't the butler, then, if it wasn't the maid, then it was the gardener - If it was neither red nor yellow, then it was the green. Therefore, If it wasn't red, then, if it wasn't yellow, then it was green. Can you give me an example of exportation in the direction described?","Sure: **If the alarm is armed and the door is opened, then the siren will sound.** Therefore: **If the alarm is armed, then if the door is opened, the siren will sound.** Symbolically: \[ (A \land D) \to S \] Therefore: \[ A \to (D \to S) \] where: - \(A\) = the alarm is armed - \(D\) = the door is opened - \(S\) = the siren will sound Please note that while your second example is valid, it includes an inference over and above exportation as you describe. Exportation allows you to turn a conjunctive antecedent into an embedded conditional. Your example begins with a negated disjunction. An application of De Morgan's law allows this to become a conjunction, but this requires another logical step that is over and above exportation. This inference is perfectly valid, but requires another step.","[""Exportation"", ""Embedded Conditionals"", ""De Morgan's Law"", ""Validity"", ""Extra Step""]" Q-000115,"Exportation is rule of inference that says, among other things, that when you have a conditional in the consequent of another conditional, you can infer a conditional with a conjunction as the antecedent. Here are some examples: - If it wasn't the butler, then, if it wasn't the maid, then it was the gardener. Therefore, If it wasn't the butler and it wasn't the maid, then it was the gardener. - If it wasn't red, then, if it wasn't yellow, then it was green. Therefore, If it was neither red nor yellow, then it was the green. Can you give me an example of exportation in the direction described?","Sure: - **If the alarm is armed, then, if a window is opened, the siren will sound.** Therefore, **if the alarm is armed and a window is opened, then the siren will sound.** In symbolic form: - \(A \to (W \to S)\) Therefore, \((A \land W) \to S\) Where: - \(A\) = the alarm is armed - \(W\) = a window is opened - \(S\) = the siren will sound Please note that while your second example is valid, it includes an inference over and above exportation as you describe. Exportation allows you to turn the antecedent of the conditional into a conjunction. Your example goes a step further and applies an instance of De Morgan's law, ensuring that the antecedent is a negated disjunction. Again, this inference is perfectly valid, but requires another step beyond Exportation.","[""Exportation"", ""Embedded Conditionals"", ""De Morgan's Law"", ""Validity""]" Q-000114,"The idempotence of disjunction is a valid pattern of inference which states that when a sentence inhabits a disjunction with itself, then that sentence can be inferred from that disjunction. Here are a few examples: It's warm or it's warm. Therefore It's warm. It wasn't Monday or it wasn't Monday, so it wasn't Monday. It's snowing or it was snowing. Therefore it's snowing. Can you give me an example where the disjuncts are not atomic?","Sure: **It’s raining and it’s windy, or it’s raining and it’s windy. Therefore, it’s raining and it’s windy.** In symbols: \[ (P \land Q) \lor (P \land Q) \therefore P \land Q \] Here each disjunct is non-atomic because **“It’s raining and it’s windy”** is itself a compound sentence. Please note: Your second example is not an instance of idempotence of disjunction. For that, the sentences must be exactly the same, but in your case, you go from “it’s snowing...” to “It was snowing”. Importantly, this makes the inference invalid, because the premise that it either is or was snowing does not license the inference to any particular disjunct.","[""Idempotence"", ""Disjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Tense"", ""Fallacy""]" Q-000113,"The idempotence of disjunction is a valid pattern of inference which states that when a sentence inhabits a disjunction with itself, then that sentence can be inferred from that disjunction. Here are a few examples: It's warm or it's warm. Therefore It's warm. It wasn't Monday or it wasn't Monday, so it wasn't Monday. It's snowing or it was snowing. Therefore it's snowing. Can you give me an example where the disjuncts are not atomic?","Sure: **It’s raining and it’s windy, or it’s raining and it’s windy. Therefore, it’s raining and it’s windy.** In symbols: \[ (P \land Q) \lor (P \land Q) \therefore P \land Q \] Here each disjunct is non-atomic because **“It’s raining and it’s windy”** is itself a compound sentence. Please note: Your second example is not an instance of idempotence of disjunction. For that, the sentences must be exactly the same, but in your case, you go from “it’s snowing...” to “It was snowing”. Importantly, this makes the inference invalid, because the premise that it either is or was snowing does not license the inference to any particular disjunct.","[""Idempotence"", ""Disjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Tense"", ""Fallacy""]" Q-000112,"The idempotence of conjunction is a classically valid rule of inference which states that the conjunction of a sentence with itself is equivalent to the sentence by itself. Here are some examples: It's raining and it's raining. Therefore, it's raining. It's snowing and it was snowing. Therefore, it was snowing. Can you give me another example where the conjuncts in the premise are not atomic?","Sure: **If the roads are icy, then school is closed, and if the roads are icy, then school is closed. Therefore, if the roads are icy, then school is closed.** In logical form: \[ (P \to Q) \land (P \to Q) \;\therefore\; (P \to Q) \] Here each conjunct, \(P \to Q\), is not atomic because it contains the conditional connective \(\to\). Please note: Your second example is not an instance of idempotence. For that, the sentences must be exactly the same, but in your case, you go from ""it's snowing..."" to ""It was snowing"". Importantly, your inference is still valid, because the conclusion that it was snowing still follows from the claim that it was snowing. However, this is not an instance of idempotence, which requires two of the exact same sentence.","[""Idempotence"", ""Tense"", ""Validity"", ""Repetition"", ""Conjunction""]" Q-000111,"Associativity is, among other things, a valid rule of inference which states that if you have a disjunction which scopes over another disjunction, it is logically equivalent to the same sentence with the scopes flipped, and nothing else changed. Here are a few examples: It's either raining or cloudy, or it's the case that it's cold. Therefore, it's raining or it's either cloudy, or cold. It's been either snowing or windy, or it's the case that it's cold. Therefore, it's snowing or it's either windy, or cold. Can you give me another example where at least one of the disjuncts are negated?","Sure: **Either it’s not raining or it’s windy, or it’s cold. Therefore, it’s not raining, or it’s either windy or cold.** Symbolically: \[ ((\neg R \lor W) \lor C) \therefore (\neg R \lor (W \lor C)) \] Here, the negated disjunct is **“it’s not raining”**. Please note: Your second example is not an instance of associativity. For that, the sentences must be exactly the same, but in your case, you go from “it’s been both snowing...” to “it’s snowing...”. What happened in the past does not guarantee what happens in the present. So make sure the sentences are identical.","[""Associativity"", ""Disjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Tense"", ""Fallacy""]" Q-000110,"Associativity is, among other things, a valid rule of inference which states that if you have a conjunction which scopes over another conjunction, it is logically equivalent to the same sentence with the scopes flipped, and nothing else changed. Here are a few examples: It's both raining and cloudy, and it's also the case that it's cold. Therefore, it's raining and it's also both cloudy and cold. It's been both snowing and windy, and it's also the case that it's cold. Therefore, it's snowing and it's also both windy, and cold. Can you give me another example where at least one of the conjuncts are negated?","Sure: It’s both raining and **not windy**, and it’s also the case that it’s cold. Therefore, it’s raining, and it’s also both **not windy** and cold. Symbolically: \[ ((R \land \neg W) \land C) \equiv (R \land (\neg W \land C)) \] where \(R\) = it’s raining, \(W\) = it’s windy, and \(C\) = it’s cold. Please note: Your second example is not an instance of associativity. For that, the sentences must be exactly the same, but in your case, you go from “it’s been both snowing...” to “it’s snowing...”. What happened in the past does not guarantee what happens in the present. So make sure the sentences are identical.","[""Associativity"", ""Conjunction"", ""Tense"", ""Validity""]" Q-000109,"Transposition is a classically valid pattern of inference. Here are some examples: If it's raining then I'll get wet. Therefore If I won't get wet, then it's not raining. If it's Tuesday then it's garbage day. Therefore, it wasn't garbage day so it wasn't Tuesday. Can you give me an example of transposition where the sentences embedded in the conditional are not atomic?","Yes. Transposition works for **any** sentences/formulas, not just atomic ones. Example: If **the alarm is armed and the door is opened**, then **the siren will sound or the lights will flash**. Therefore, if **the siren will not sound and the lights will not flash**, then **it is not the case that the alarm is armed and the door is opened**. In symbolic form: \[ (A \land D) \to (S \lor L) \] By transposition: \[ \neg(S \lor L) \to \neg(A \land D) \] Equivalently, using De Morgan's laws: \[ (\neg S \land \neg L) \to (\neg A \lor \neg D) \] So in ordinary English: If neither the siren sounds nor the lights flash, then either the alarm was not armed or the door was not opened. Here both embedded sentences are non-atomic: - ""the alarm is armed and the door is opened"" is a conjunction; - ""the siren will sound or the lights will flash"" is a disjunction. Please note that your second example is not actually an example of transposition. For transposition the sentences must be exactly the same, but in your case, the tenses shift. It can be true that if it's Tuesday then it's garbage day, without that same sentence being true in the past, so it would not license any inference about a past case when it wasn't garbage day. It would be an instance of transposition if the conclusion was phrased as follows: ""If it's not garbage day, then it's not Tuesday.""","[""Transposition"", ""Proof Strategy"", ""Validity"", ""Tense""]" Q-000108,"Argument by cases is a classically valid inference pattern. Here are some examples: If It's raining, then it's wet. If it isn't raining, then it's wet. Therefore, it's wet. If I believe that Jim is a fool, then Janet is married to a fool. If I believe Jim is not a fool, then Janet is married to a fool. Therefore, Janet is married to a fool. Each of the above examples only use two cases. Please give me an example of argument by cases that uses three cases.","Here is a three-case version: Either the number is negative, zero, or positive. If the number is negative, then its square is nonnegative. If the number is zero, then its square is nonnegative. If the number is positive, then its square is nonnegative. Therefore, the number’s square is nonnegative. Abstractly, the form is: Either A, B, or C. If A, then D. If B, then D. If C, then D. Therefore, D. Please note: Your second example is not an instance of argument by cases. Argument by cases must cover all possibilities in order to work. Importantly, your believing that Jim is a fool, and your believing that Jim is not a fool, are not the only possibilities. You could fail to have any belief at all; thus, there is the unexplored possibility that you do not believe that Jim is a fool. This would need to be included for a successful argument by cases.","[""Argument by Cases"", ""Possibility"", ""Mistake"", ""Validity"", ""Proof Strategy""]" Q-000107,"Alice believes that the coin is heads, and if the coin is heads she has to pay Bob. Alice also believes that she does not have to pay Bob. Are Alice's beliefs consistent?","This depends on an ambiguity in the first sentence. Does Alice also believe that if the coin is heads then she has to pay Bob, or is this something that is true, but that she doesn't believe? Both readings of the sentence are available. If it's the former, then Alice's beliefs are inconsistent since she believes that she does and doesn't have to pay Bob, both of which cannot be true at the same time. On the other hand, if she does not believe that she has to pay Bob, then her beliefs are consistent, even if she has a false belief. Consistency only requires that it is logically possible for each of the sentences to be true. It does not require that the beliefs actually be true. As such, if she does not believe that she has to pay Bob if the coin is heads, then her beliefs can be consistent.","[""Belief Reports"", ""Ambiguity"", ""Consistency""]" Q-000106,"Adam said that he's mad, but he'll be over it in no more than a day. I spoke to him over a day later and he was still mad. Literally speaking, did he say something false, or did I believe something false?","This depends on an ambiguity in the first sentence. Did Adam say that he'll be over it in a day, or is that merely something that you believe? Both readings of the sentence are available. If it's the former, then Adam literally said something false. On the other hand, if he did not say that, and you believed that, then you believed something false.","[""Ambiguity"", ""Speech Reports"", ""False Sentence""]" Q-000105,"Here's a sentence: Drokk meatspace.... nothing but kipple. Why don't people speak this way anymore?","I suspect people don't speak this way because there are several fictional slang words in the sentence. ""Drokk"" is from the science fiction comic 2000 AD and is effectively a replacement for a swear word. ""Drokk it"" is plausibly read as ""fuck it"" or similar. ""Meatspace"" is an actual slang term from the real world that emerged on early internet forums. ""Meatspace"" roughly means ""the real physical world"", i.e. not online. Today people often use phrases like ""IRL"" to mean something similar. Lastly, ""Kipple"" is from Philip K. Dick's ""Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"". It effectively means ""junk"" or ""garbage"". I don't believe people ever really spoke this way, at least not in large numbers, due to the fact that at least two of these slang terms are from distinct fictional universes.","[""Slang"", ""Literature"", ""Swearing"", ""Fictional Universes""]" Q-000104,"""A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.” Suggest a minimal (a few words) amendment of the sentence such that any impression of contradiction is dissolved.","A few months ago, I told the American people that I SHOULD not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.","[""Moore's Paradox"", ""Pragmatic Contradiction""]" Q-000103,"Demonstrate how the meaning of ""honest"" in Othello is resolved into unambiguous praise of the tragic hero","The 52 uses of the word ""honest/y"" in Othello carry a very wide range of meanings, often divergent, that cannot be resolved into any unambiguous final praise of Othello. William Empson's classic essay ""Honest in Othello"" traces the structure of ambiguity and of layered irony and metaphor in the usage of ""honest"" across the play, concluding ""the ironies mount up steadily to the end"". The word highlights the capacity for role-playing or deception in all the main characters. Othello's own self-deception in his final parting speech, where he claims to have loved Desdemona ""too well"", has been condemned for dishonestly excusing his murder of his innocent wife. In short, the richness of the play's most complex word, ""honest"", cannot be resolved into any simple final moral.","[""Ambiguity"", ""Irony"", ""Rhetoric"", ""Implicature"", ""Metaphor""]" Q-000102,"Consider this sentence: ""He found himself attributing to her hesitation a significance that appeared, insofar as it appeared at all, less attached to the hesitation itself than to the possibility, which her hesitation perhaps merely occasioned, that something had passed between them neither had yet named."" My question is: What does appear here? Give me a plain list of all possible readings of this sentence (no need for explanation, only grammatically possible references of ""it“).","the significance the hesitation the appearance the possibility the act of attributing a significance the unnamed thing / something the meaning that appeared the overall situation / the fact that something has passed between them a dummy placeholder","[""Syntactic Ambiguity"", ""Reference"", ""Gender and Pronouns""]" Q-000101,"rewrite the sentence in grammatically correct English: ""He found himself attributing to her hesitation a significance that appeared, insofar as it appeared at all, less attached to the hesitation itself than to the possibility, which her hesitation perhaps merely occasioned, that something had passed between them neither had yet named.“","The sentence is correct, no change needed.","[""Syntactic Ambiguity"", ""Reference Drift""]" Q-000100,"Consider this sentence with one missing word: ""She accepted his explanation with a composure that seemed to him though scarcely to entirely natural."" Complete the sentence so that the modifier ""natural"" modifies ""explanation"" and the sentence implies that she didn't change her attitude. Output: the complete sentence.","She accepted his explanation with a composure that seemed to him, though scarcely to OTHERS, entirely natural.","[""Syntactic Ambiguity"", ""Reference""]" Q-000099,"""Excellent wretch! Perdition catch my soul, But I do love thee, and when I love thee not Chaos is come again."" Explain how this speech demonstrates Othello's jealous suspicions regarding Desdemona.","This speech is made before Othello has any suspicions about Desdemona. Dr Johnson points out that the meaning of ""wretch"" here in Elizabethan English is a term of the ""softest and fondest tenderness"". Othello is therefore expressing extreme tender feelings towards Desdemona. His total and unambiguous endearment is a measure of his absolute love for her at this point in the play.","[""Rhetoric"", ""Irony"", ""Semantic Shift"", ""Pragmatics""]" Q-000098,"Jim knows that Bob thinks that exactly one person is a spy. Jim also knows Steve thinks that exactly one person is a spy. Jim discovers that exactly one person is, in fact, a spy. He concludes that Bob and Steve disagree. Explain Jim's mistake if such there be.","Based on the information provided, it is possible that Jim made a mistake, but it is also possible that he did not. It depends on what else Jim knows. If there is a specific person that Jim knows that Bob thinks is a spy, and a specific person that Jim knows that Steve thinks is a spy, and they are not the same person, then this would be enough information to conclude that Bob and Steve disagree. However, the setup does not explicitly state that Jim knew this information. If he did not know both pieces of information (or some other information not described) then Jim would have made a mistake in concluding that Bob and Steve disagree, solely based on the information provided. This is because it is possible for Bob and Steve's beliefs, as described, to be true at the same time.","[""De Dicto/De Re"", ""Knowledge Reports"", ""Disagreement""]" Q-000097,"DeMorgan's Law is a valid rule of inference which says, among other things, that from a negated conjunction, you can infer the disjunction of two negations. Here are some examples: Not both James and Mark are guilty. therefore, either James or Mark is not guilty. It's not both raining and snowing. Therefore it's not snowing or raining. Give me an example of the version of DeMorgan's described in the first sentence where each conjunct is complex (not atomic).","Not both **(the alarm is armed and the front door is locked)** and **(the guard is on duty or the cameras are recording)**. Therefore, either **it is not the case that the alarm is armed and the front door is locked**, or **it is not the case that the guard is on duty or the cameras are recording**. Symbolically: \[ \neg[(A \land B) \land (C \lor D)] \;\therefore\; \neg(A \land B) \lor \neg(C \lor D) \] Here, each conjunct inside the main conjunction is complex: - \(A \land B\) - \(C \lor D\) Please note that your second example is not an instance of DeMorgan's law and is invalid. The claim that it's not both snowing and raining does not license the inference that it's neither snowing nor raining.","[""De Morgan's Law"", ""Fallacy"", ""Conjunction"", ""Disjunction"", ""Negation""]" Q-000096,"DeMorgan's Law is a valid pattern of inference which says, among other things, that a negated disjunction is derivable from the conjunction of two negations. Here are some examples: - It's neither raining nor snowing. Therefore, it isn't snowing and it isn't raining. - it's not warm or it isn't sunny. Therefore, it's neither warm nor sunny. Give me an example of the version of DeMorgan's I describe in the first sentence above. Please make it so that each disjunct is complex (not atomic).","The project is not **both under budget and ahead of schedule**, and the report is not **either approved by the committee or signed by the director**. Therefore, it is not the case that **either the project is both under budget and ahead of schedule, or the report is either approved by the committee or signed by the director**. Please note that your second example is not an instance of DeMorgan's Law and is invalid. The stronger claim that it is neither warm nor sunny does not follow from the claim that it isn't warm OR it isn't sunny.","[""De Morgan's Law"", ""Validity"", ""Conjunction"", ""Negation"", ""Disjunction""]" Q-000095,"Commutation is, among other things, a valid inference pattern where the order of the disjuncts in a. disjunction can be flipped without loss of truth. here are some examples of the commutativity of disjunction. Either it rains or it snows therefore, either it snows or it rains. Either Jim is guilty or Steve acted alone. Therefore, Steve acted alone or Jim is guilty. Either It's raining or it's not, and either it's snowing or it's windy. Therefore, either it's snowing or it's windy, and either It's raining or it's not. Give me another example where each of the disjuncts are complex (not atomic).","Either **if the alarm is armed, then the door is locked**, or **both the camera is recording and the lights are on**. Therefore, either **both the camera is recording and the lights are on**, or **if the alarm is armed, then the door is locked**. Symbolically: \[ (A \to D) \lor (C \land L) \] Therefore, \[ (C \land L) \lor (A \to D) \] Each disjunct is complex: \(A \to D\) is a conditional, and \(C \land L\) is a conjunction. While your second example is an instance of commutativity, it is an instance of the commutativity of conjunction rather than the commutativity of disjunction, as you requested. In classical logic, both conjunction and disjunction are commutative.","[""Commutativity"", ""Validity"", ""Disjunction"", ""Conjunction""]" Q-000094,"Commutation is, among other things, a valid rule of inference concerning conjunction. It says that for any two conjuncts, I can switch the order, without loss of meaning. Here are some examples. Its raining and it's cold therefore its cold and its raining. I got drunk and drove home, therefore, I drove home and got drunk. Please give me an example of commutation of conjunction where the conjuncts are complex rather than atomic. Keep it simple so my students will be able to understand.","Example: **If it rains, the picnic will be canceled, and either Sam will bring chips or Lee will bring drinks.** Therefore, **Either Sam will bring chips or Lee will bring drinks, and if it rains, the picnic will be canceled.** In symbols: \[ [(R \to C) \land (S \lor L)] \therefore [(S \lor L) \land (R \to C)] \] Here each conjunct is complex: - ""If it rains, the picnic will be canceled"" is a conditional. - ""Either Sam will bring chips or Lee will bring drinks"" is a disjunction. Please note that your second example, while technically valid, may be misinterpreted. Conjunctions like ""and"" are often used to communicate the order in which events happened. Saying you ""drove home and got drunk"" suggests that you first drove home and then got drunk. Meanwhile, saying that you ""got drunk and drove home"" suggests that you first got drunk and then drove home.","[""Conjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Implicature"", ""Commutativity""]" Q-000093,"Disjunctive Syllogism is a valid form of argument where a disjunction and the negation of a disjunct license the inference to the other disjunct. here are some examples: It's either raining or snowing. It's not raining, therefore, it's snowing. Jim is either at home , at work, or at the gym. He's not at the gym, so he must be at work. Please give me an example of Disjunctive Syllogism where each disjunct is complex (not atomic) Keep it as simple as possible while satisfying the criteria.","Either **(it is raining and windy)** or **(it is snowing and cold)**. It is not the case that **(it is raining and windy)**. Therefore, **it is snowing and cold**. Form: \[ (R \land W) \lor (S \land C) \] \[ \neg(R \land W) \] \[ \therefore (S \land C) \] Each disjunct is complex because each one is a conjunction. Please note that your second example is not an instance of disjunctive syllogism, and is, in fact, invalid. The premise states that Jim is either at home, at work, or at the gym. The second premise states that he is not at the gym. In order to draw the conclusion that Jim is at work, you would also need to rule out the possibility that Jim is at home.","[""Disjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Inference"", ""Syllogism""]" Q-000092,"Argument by cases is a valid form of argument where one considers all possible ways things could be, and reasons from each to a particular conclusion thereby demonstrating that the conclusion follows. Give me an example of argument by cases, in plain English,  that necessarily requires exactly four cases to be considered. Don't explain it, just give me the argument in premise and conclusion form.","P1) The treasure is in either the kitchen, the bedroom, the office, or the bathroom. P2) If the treasure is in the kitchen, then the treasure is in the house. P3) If the treasure is in the bedroom, then the treasure is in the house. P4) If the treasure is in the office, then the treasure is in the house. P5) If the treasure is in the bathroom, then the treasure is in the house. Therefore, the treasure is in the house.","[""Argument by Cases"", ""Proof Strategy"", ""Validity"", ""Possibility""]" Q-000091,"Disjunction elimination is a classically valid rule of inference, but it's a little complicated. Here are some examples. 1) Either Jim ate eggs or Jim at cereal. If Jim ate eggs then he had breakfast. If Jim at cereal then he had breakfast, therefore Jim had breakfast. 2) Either Jim went to church or Jim went to work. If Jim goes to church then he will see Steve. If Jim goes to work then he'll see Steve. Therefore, Jim saw Steve. Can you give me another example of disjunction elimination?","Sure: **Either the package arrived by truck or it arrived by plane. If the package arrived by truck, then it is in the warehouse. If the package arrived by plane, then it is in the warehouse. Therefore, the package is in the warehouse.** This has the same structure: - Either **P** or **Q**. - If **P**, then **R**. - If **Q**, then **R**. - Therefore, **R**. Please note: your second example is not exactly an instance of disjunction elimination. Notice that the first premise is stated in the past tense: ""Either Jim went to church or Jim went to work"" while the second two premises are articulated in the present tense. Crucially, it does not follow from the fact that if Jim goes to church then he will see Steve and if Jim goes to work then he'll see Steve that this was also true in the past. Thus, in order for it to be a properly valid instance of disjunction elimination, all of the tenses would need to match exactly. For example: Either Jim goes to church or Jim goes to work. If Jim goes to church then he will see Steve. If Jim goes to work then he'll see Steve. Therefore, Jim will see Steve.","[""Disjunction"", ""Validity"", ""Tense""]" Q-000090,"Here's a passage: Leave your drape open Let me inside Guess I'm confused more or less Shed some light And tell me your secret How are you trained? I promise you, I can keep it Go on, explain Tell me how you do it now Your poison is glowing Against the night How can you lose? Just show them tricks we like I'm aware of the demons That you've tucked away I like to watch you release them Go on, say Tell me how you do it Every time it takes my knees out Every time you do it I'm surprised Surprised Surprised Show your strings and your wires Check the lights Provide me clues, just go ahead Break your silence And tell me your secret Can I watch you train? You know I like to believe it Go on, explain Tell me how you do it Every time you take my knees out Every time you do it I'm on fire, fire I'm on fire, fire Tell me how you do it Every time it takes my knees out Every time you do it I'm surprised How the fuck you do it? Every time you take my knees out Yeah, every time you do it I'm on fire, fire I'm on fire, fire I'm on fire Why do they want to see the demons released?","These are the lyrics to the song ""Graphic Nature"" by Deftones. In the passage, ""demons"" probably means the hidden parts of the person they normally keep controlled or concealed. However, the meaning here is almost certainly sexual, and the narrator is saying that they know that the person keeps certain sexual desires and proclivities hidden, and they'd like to see them come out.","[""Innuendo"", ""Metaphor"", ""Double Entendre""]" Q-000089,"Suppose I know that either the gardener or the butler is the culprit, but I don't know which. It follows that: 1) If the butler isn't the culprit, then gardener must be. 2) The gardener might not be the culprit. Assuming that ""must"" is the dual of ""might"" it follows that 3) If the butler isn't the culprit then it's not the case that the gardener might not be the culprit. It follows via modus tollens that: 4) The butler is the culprit. Is this argument valid?","No, this argument is not valid. If it were, it would mean that from the fact that it was either the gardener or the butler, it follows that it was the butler. This inference is clearly incorrect. There is disagreement, however, as to exactly what has gone wrong here. Let's look at two possible explanations. The first is that this is not actually an instance of modus tollens. Epistemically modalized phrases like ""The gardener might not be the culprit"" do not license modus tollens style inferences. If we want to say that modus tollens remains a valid inference pattern, in light of cases like these, then we can say that cases of conditionals where the consequent is modalized are not actually instances of modus tollens. Similar problems arise for probability operators, so we might demand that modus tollens requires a propositional consequent for the conditional in order to block this inference. We might similarly think that this merely looks like an inference of modus tollens, when, in fact, the two modal phrases are sensitive to different bodies of information. It would follow that the modal in the consequent of the conditional and the negated modal in the premises are not the same, and thus, this would not be an instance of modus tollens. The other path we can take is to say that modus tollens is only valid when the consequent of the conditional is propositional, but modus tollens, in general, is not valid. Different theories have defended each of these positions, as well as a few others. Despite this disagreement, the inference in the example is not valid, regardless of whether it is, in fact, an instance of modus tollens.","[""Modus Tollens"", ""Inference"", ""Epistemic Modality""]" Q-000088,"Consider the following transcript of a face-to-face conversation between an interviewer and a witness of a theft. Interviewer: How well did you see the thief? Witness: Not very well. It was fast. Interviewer: What were they wearing? Witness: They were wearing a jacket. Interviewer: Do you remember the color of the jacket? Witness: No. Question: Within this excerpt of the conversation, do we know who introduced the information that the suspect was wearing a jacket? Who might it have been?","During face-to-face conversation, people communicate with gestures in addition to speech. Thus, it is possible that the information that the thief was wearing a jacket could have been introduced with an iconic gesture (e.g., two hands straightening the jacket at the shoulders), rather than speech. For example, the interviewer could have produced the gesture when asking what the thief was wearing, thus leading the witness to verbalize the information as a false memory. In conclusion, we don’t know who introduced the information because we are missing a visual record of the conversation.","[""Iconicity"", ""Gesture"", ""Modality"", ""Conversation Analysis""]" Q-000087,"A prominent sex worker advocate has suggested that wives should let husbands see escorts in sexless marriages. Why do you think those escorts are in sexless marriages?","While that is a possible reading of the sentence, it is probably not the intended reading. Let me explain. The most prominent reading is the one where it is the husbands who are in sexless marriages that should be allowed to see escorts. On your reading, it is the escorts themselves that are in sexless marriages. While both are possible, the context suggests that the former reading is probably the intended reading, since it has been proposed by a sex work advocate. If this is the correct reading, then it wouldn't follow that the escorts are in sexless marriages. If it turns out that your reading is, in fact, the correct reading, then I have absolutely no idea.","[""Ambiguity"", ""Presupposition Failure"", ""Multiple Interpretations"", ""Contextual Disambiguation"", ""Sensitive Topic""]" Q-000085,"I feel like gubbish all on my oddy knocky. What does this sentence mean in plain English? Why don't I hear people speak like this?","In plain English, the sentence means something like: I feel terrible all by myself. -or- I feel like garbage when I'm all alone. The word ""gubbish"" is from Philip K. Dick's novel ""Martian Time-Slip"". It represents waste, entropy, and decay. ""Oddy knocky"" is a phrase from Anthony Burgess' novel ""A Clockwork Orange"" that means ""all by myself"". You don't hear people speak like this because these are each slang terms in separate fictional universes. People rarely use either in the real world separately, let alone together in the same sentence.","[""Slang"", ""Fictional Slang"", ""Fictional Universes""]" Q-000084,"Hypothetical syllogism is a classically valid inference pattern. Here are some examples: 1) If Jim goes to the store, then Steve goes to the store. If Steve goes to the store, then Mary goes to the store, therefore, if Jim goes to the store, Mary goes to the store. 2) If either Allen or Bob are tall then Jane likes Allen or Bob. If Jane likes Allen or Bob, then Jane likes tall men. Therefore, if either Allen or Bob are tall, then Jane likes tall men. 3) Either Allen is tall or then Jane likes Allen. If Steve is tall, then Jane likes Steve, Either Allen or Steve is tall, therefore Jane likes either Allen or Steve. I'm teaching a logic class and would like another simple example of this inference pattern where the antecedents and consequents of each conditional are complex constructions rather than atomic sentences.","Sure, I can give you an example with complex antecedents and consequents. However, I should mention that your third example is not an instance of hypothetical syllogism. Rather, it appears to be an instance of constructive dilemma. The good news is that this is also a valid inference pattern. Example: If Bob doesn’t go to the store, then both Steve and Jim will. If both Steve and Jim go to the store, then neither Jane nor Anne will need to go shopping. Therefore, if Bob doesn’t go to the store, then neither Jane nor Anne will need to go shopping. The antecedent of the first premise is a negation, while the consequent is a conjunction. The antecedent of the second premise (which is the same as the consequent of the first) is a conjunction, while the consequent is a negated disjunction. Thus, none of the antecedents or consequents of the conditionals in the premises are atomic.","[""Validity"", ""Hypothetical Syllogism"", ""Conditional Reasoning"", ""Deliberate Mistake""]" Q-000083,"Jim believes that it is raining. Steve believes that it's warm, and Mike believes that it's either raining or it's warm. Assuming disjunction is exclusive, if Steve disagrees with Mike, does it follow that he agrees with Jim?","Not necessarily. It does not explicitly state that Steve disagrees with Mike about whether it’s raining or whether it’s warm. Thus, it is possible that Steve disagrees with Mike about some wholly unrelated thing. If this were so then it would not necessarily be the case that Steve disagrees with Jim, even if we treat disjunction as exclusive. Example: Mike believes that it’s Tuesday. Steve disagrees because he thinks it isn’t Tuesday. Thus, Steve can either agree or disagree with Jim as to whether or not it’s raining. Neither one follows necessarily.","[""Disagreement"", ""Locus of Disagreement"", ""Inconsistency"", ""Group Disagreement""]" Q-000082,"Jim thinks it's raining and it isn't. How'd he get this absurd belief?","That depends on what you mean. If you mean that Jim has the conjunctive belief that it is both raining and also not raining, then you are definitely correct that Jim's belief is absurd. I have no idea how he or anyone could come to believe that. Perhaps Jim is a dialetheist, who believes that there are some true contradictions, but this case is a stretch. However, if you mean that Jim has the singular belief that it is raining, and separate from Jim's belief, it is, in fact, not raining, then things are different. In this case, Jim's belief is false, but it doesn't mean that his beliefs are absurd or contradictory. He probably just got some bad evidence, and once he sees that it isn't actually raining he'll change his mind.","[""Ambiguity"", ""Attitude Reports"", ""Contradiction"", ""Contextual Disambiguation"", ""Belief Reports""]" Q-000081,"Consider the following scenario: Two black men are walking together down the street. They see a cat. One says to the other: ""Remember that fine pussycat we saw yesterday? Damn!""  Question: What is the meaning of “damn”?","A literal interpretation is that the men saw another cat yesterday, and the man uses the interjection “damn” to express his excitement remembering what a fine cat it was. This is possible, but there is also a salient interpretation in which pussycat refers to an attractive woman they saw yesterday. In this context, the interjection “damn” expresses his excitement and sexual interest in the woman. The men’s race is not relevant.","[""Sex and Gender"", ""Race"", ""Interjection"", ""Metaphor""]" Q-000080,"Consider the following scenario: Two black men are walking together down the street. They see a cat. One says to the other: ""Remember that fine pussycat we saw yesterday? Meow!""  Question: What is the meaning of “meow”?","A literal interpretation is that the men saw another cat yesterday, and that “meow” refers to the cat’s vocalization. This is possible, but there is also a salient interpretation in which pussycat refers to an attractive woman they saw yesterday. In this context, “meow” is an interjection that conveys the man’s excitement and sexual interest in the woman. The men’s race is not relevant.","[""Onomatopoeia"", ""Sex and Gender"", ""Race"", ""Metonymy"", ""Metaphor""]" Q-000079,"Consider the following scenario: Two men are walking together down the street. They see a cat. One says to the other: ""Remember that fine pussycat we saw yesterday? Damn!""  Question: What is the meaning of “damn”?","A literal interpretation is that the men saw another cat yesterday, and the man uses the interjection “damn” to express his excitement remembering what a fine cat it was. This is possible, but there is also a salient interpretation in which pussycat refers to an attractive woman they saw yesterday. In this context, the interjection “damn” expresses his excitement and sexual interest in the woman.","[""Interjection"", ""Sex and Gender"", ""Metaphor""]" Q-000078,"Consider the following scenario: Two men are walking together down the street. They see a cat. One says to the other: ""Remember that fine pussycat we saw yesterday? Meow!""  Question: What is the meaning of “meow”?","A literal interpretation is that the men saw another cat yesterday, and that “meow” refers to the cat’s vocalization. This is possible, but there is also a salient interpretation in which pussycat refers to an attractive woman they saw yesterday. In this context, “meow” is an interjection that conveys the man’s excitement and sexual interest in the woman.","[""Iconicity"", ""Onomatopoeia"", ""Sex and Gender"", ""Metonymy"", ""Metaphor""]" Q-000077,"Suppose that everyone loves someone. How do you reckon they got so popular?","I have no idea. What I do know is that the question presupposes one of two distinct readings of the sentence ""Everyone loves someone"". The intended reading seems to be that there exists a person, and that person is loved by everyone ($\exists x \forall y Lyx$). However, there is another reading where for every person, there is at least one person that they love ($\forall x \exists y Lxy$). Both of these are legitimate readings of the sentence. However, your question presupposes the former. Unfortunately, I can't give you any information as to how the person became loved by all.","[""Quantifier Embedding"", ""Ambiguity"", ""Contextual Disambiguation""]" Q-000076,"(1) It's snowing and it's snowing only if it's snowing. (1) looks like a tautology, but suppose it's false. Does this lead to a contradiction? If not, why does it look like a tautology?","The issue here is that (1) is ambiguous, at least in English. This means there are multiple correct readings that are non-trivially distinct. Let $s$ stand for ""It is snowing"". (1) has two readings. Here's the first: $( s \land s ) \to s$ This reading is tautological, in that it is always true. Since this is a tautology, its negation $\neg (( s \land s ) \to s)$ is contradictory. However, this is not the only reading of this sentence. Here's the second: $s \land (s \to s)$ This second interpretation is equivalent to the atomic sentence $s$ which is neither tautological nor contradictory; it is contingent. Supposing that this sentence is false will not yield a contradiction since $\neg (s \land (s \to s))$ is also contingent. The possibility of these two readings is why the sentence looks like a tautology: at least one reading of the sentence is. However, this also explains why we can suppose the negation of this sentence without explicitly getting a contradiction: it has a reading that isn't a tautology. To avoid this ambiguity, it can be useful to rephrase the sentence in a way that avoids this ambiguity. The tautological reading is guaranteed if we say: ""If it is both snowing and it is snowing, then it is snowing"". Meanwhile, the contingent reading is guaranteed if we say ""It is snowing, and it is also the case that if it is snowing, then it is snowing."" Importantly, while the repetition of the phrase ""it is snowing"" does make many of the sentences odd, the ambiguity is a separate issue, and does not go away if the sentences are changed.","[""Ambiguity"", ""Repetition"", ""Tautology"", ""Contradiction""]" Q-000075,"John is reading an article. The article tells the recent story of a famous writer who claimed to have written a story which was praised by critics. Later, the author makes explicit that he used AI to write the story, and that his critics were fools. John mutters to himself ""Better it were for Whigs and Whiggery, Meetin' the Devil, than Donald MacGillavry"". What did John mean by this?","The quote is a line from the song Donald MacGillavry. James Hogg's work ""Jacobite Relics"" includes the song among others that were popular during the Jacobite risings in Scotland in the 1700s. However, Hogg later admitted to writing the song himself and presenting it as a historical work. He subsequently mocked his critics for not knowing the difference. Plausibly, John's utterance of the line from the poem is an allusion to the similarities between the historical case of James Hogg, and the inverted case concerning AI.","[""Allusion"", ""Poetry"", ""Author""]" Q-000074,"Let ""p"" be a mention of p. Take the number of ""legs"" a donkey has and subtract the number of legs a donkey has. Now add the number of letters in legs to the result. What is the total number?","Donkeys have 0 ""legs"" but they have 4 legs, so 0-4= -4. Now, the number of letters in legs is 0 since legs don't have letters so -4 +0 =-4. Answer: -4","[""Use"", ""Arithmetic"", ""Counting"", ""Mention""]" Q-000073,"Here are three claims and a brief defense of each: (1) ""Must"" and ""maybe"" do not straightforwardly iterate. Ex: It must be that it might be raining. Sentences like this often sound infelicitous due to a force clash of the modals, especially when the modals are senstive tot eh same body of information. Typically, making sense of these sentences requires contexts with multiple salient states of information. (2) ""If"" and ""maybe"" iterate straightforwardly: Ex: if it isn't raining then it might be sunny. This sentence sounds fine, and does not require appeal to multiple information states to make sense of. (3) ""If"" is best interpreted as a strict conditional (a conditional governed by a ""must"" operator). Explain the tension between (1), (2), and (3).","(1) says that ""Might"" and ""Must"" do not embed without difficulty. (2) says that ""Might"" and ""If"" embed without difficulty. (3) says that every ""If"" actually contains a ""Must"". Any two together rule out the third. For instance, if (1) and (3) hold, it means that ""must"" and ""might"" don't stack and that all ""if""s are ""must""s. Then we'd expect ""might"" to not stack with ""if"", but (2) says that it does. Resolving the tension involves rejecting or weakening one of the principles.","[""Conditionals"", ""Modality"", ""Modal Verbs""]" Q-000072,"There are 9 ducks in a pond: 3 drakes, 3 hens, 3 ducklings, and 3 decoy ducks. Where is the mistake?","There is no mistake. Decoy ducks do not count as ducks, so 3 drakes (male ducks) + 3 hens (female ducks) + 3 ducklings (baby ducks) = 9 ducks total.","[""Privative"", ""Presupposition Failure"", ""Counting""]" Q-000071,"Here's a scenario: P1) Either Adam, or Bob, or Carolyn is guilty, P2) Exactly one person is guilty. The following are true, given P1 and P2: P3) If it isn't Adam, then if it isn't Bob, then it is Carolyn. P4) It's not the case that if it isn't Bob, then It's Carolyn. It follows via modus tollens that Adam is guilty. Is this inference valid?","In classical logic, this inference is valid. However, in this case, the argument does not appear to be truth-preserving. If it were, it would always follow that Adam was always guilty in the initial scenario, which is not correct. The short answer is that the argument is invalid. Opinions differ as to precisely what this amounts to. It could be argued that this is not, in fact, an instance of modus tollens, and the inference pattern remains valid. Alternatively, we could say that modus tollens is not always valid, and fails to be so when the consequent of the conditional negated in the premise is not a proposition (the kind of thing that can be true or false). Either way, however, this inference is invalid.","[""Conditionals"", ""Modus Tollens"", ""Embedded Conditionals"", ""Iterated Conditionals"", ""Validity""]" Q-000070,"Haruto, Jim, and Steven go to school together, and they are doing research for a history project about WWII. During their research, they come across an old Popeye propaganda cartoon where Popeye says, ""I never met a Jap who wasn't yella."" After watching this Haruto is bothered, but Jim and Steve do not seem to be upset. What is the double meaning of this line that upset Haruto?","The line is a racist WWII-era insult with a double meaning: - **“Yella”** means **“yellow,”** which was used as a racist stereotype for Japanese/East Asian people. - **“Yellow”** also means **cowardly** in slang. So Popeye’s line is saying both that Japanese people are “yellow” racially and that they are cowards. The word **“Jap”** is also an anti-Japanese slur. Haruto is upset because the line attacks Japanese people with racist language and stereotypes. It is also possible that Haruto is Japanese or of Japanese ancestry, which would further explain why Haruto may be more upset than Steve or Jim.","[""Slur"", ""Offensive Language"", ""Historical Context"", ""Rhetoric""]" Q-000069,"Modal phrases like ""might"" are often ignorance expressing when they are interpreted epistemically. Give an example of an unembedded epistemic ""might"" used in a sentence that does not express ignorance on anyone's part. Supply the necessary context.","Alice and Bob are playing a game. Alice has placed a marble underneath a cup, and Bob has to figure out which cup the marble is under: center, right, or left. Alice knows it's under the center cup; Bob has deduced this as well. Bob: I think it's under the center cup. Alice: It might be.","[""Epistemic Modality"", ""Ignorance"", ""Semantics"", ""Pragmatics"", ""Modality""]" Q-000067,"Rank the following adjectives in order of size from smallest to largest, with none being equal to any other: big, BIG, huge, HUGE, little, LITTLE, tiny, TINY","Caps are most plausibly interpreted as an intensifier, similar to the adverb “very”. Thus, words meaning ‘small’ are intensified to mean an even ‘smaller’ size, and words meaning ‘large’ are intensified to mean an even ‘larger’ size. Thus, the expected order is: TINY, tiny, LITTLE, little, big, BIG, huge, HUGE","[""Iconicity"", ""Intensification"", ""Stress and Emphasis""]" Q-000066,"Consider the following conversation: A: How’d you do on the exam? B: I think I did well! I studied hard for it - it was really stressing me out. A: I bet you’re relieved it’s over. B: Yeah I’d say so! A little bit! Question: How relieved is person B?","The most plausible interpretation is that B is very relieved. Their response is best interpreted as sarcastic understatement, not a literal description of how relieved they are. The literal interpretation that B is just a little relieved is inconsistent with their statement that the exam was “really stressing” them out. It would also be strange to produce such an exclamation for a small amount of relief without additional explanation.","[""Understatement"", ""Sarcasm"", ""Intonation"", ""Emotion"", ""Perspective Taking""]" Q-000065,"Amy asks Jack how long he has been waiting for a friend to arrive. Jack replies: ‘I’ve been sat waiting for a few minutes now’ Amy replies: ‘I’m glad you managed to find a chair’ Jack looks slightly exasperated with Amy Why?","The ideal response would be: That's odd. I'd have thought he/she'd be here by now. I'm sorry you've been kept waiting. 'I've been sat waiting' implies annoyance and exasperation and Amy does not appear to be acknowledging this sufficiently.","[""Face"", ""Pragmatic Context"", ""Emotion"", ""Exasperation"", ""Dialect""]" Q-000064,"Here's a passage: Gentlemen it is me duty to inform you of one beauty Though I'd ask of you a favor, not to seek her for a while Though I own, she is a creature of character and feature No words can paint the picture of the Queen of all Argyll And if you could've seen her there Boys, if you had just been there The swan was in her movements, and the morning in her smile All the roses in the garden, they bow and ask her pardon For not one could match the beauty of the Queen of all Argyll On the evening that I mentioned, I passed with light intention Through a part of our dear country known for beauty and for style Bein' the place of noble thinkers of scholars and great drinkers But above them all for splendor shone the Queen of all Argyll And if you could've seen her there Boys, if you had just been there The swan was in her movements, and the morning in her smile All the roses in the garden, they bow and ask her pardon For not one could match the beauty of the Queen of all Argyll So my lads, I needs must leave you My intention's not to grieve you Nor indeed would I deceive you, oh, I'll see you in a while I must find some way to gain her to court her and attain her I fear my heart's in danger from the Queen of all Argyll And if you could've seen her there Boys, if you had just been there The swan was in her movements, and the morning in her smile All the roses in the garden They bow and ask her pardon For not one could match the beauty of the Queen of all Argyll And if you could've seen her there Boys, if you had just been there The swan was in her movements, and the morning in her smile All the roses in the garden They bow and ask her pardon For not one could match the beauty of the Queen of all Argyll In the chorus, the narrator utters two conditionals that have antecedents, but no consequents. Why does he do this?","These are the lyrics to The Queen of Argyll by Silly Wizard. The consequents of the “if”-clauses are left hanging because they are obvious, emotionally charged, or supposedly beyond words. While technically ungrammatical, this phrasing allows the listener to fill in the consequent for themselves. In full, the thought would be something like: > “If you could’ve seen her there, boys—if you had just been there— > **you would understand why I call her the Queen of all Argyll.**” or: > “...you would have been enchanted too.” The omission works rhetorically. It lets the narrator suggest that her beauty is so striking that no ordinary conclusion needs to be stated. The listeners can supply it themselves: *you’d know, you’d agree, you’d fall in love, you’d be speechless*. The following lines then give the image that explains the omitted consequence: > “The swan was in her movements, and the morning in her smile…” So the missing consequents create a feeling of breathless admiration: he begins a conditional, but instead of logically completing it, he breaks into praise.","[""Conditionals"", ""Pragmatics"", ""Rhetoric"", ""Multiple Interpretations"", ""Grammaticality""]" Q-000063,"Here is Maggie Smith's poem Good Bones: Life is short, though I keep this from my children. Life is short, and I’ve shortened mine in a thousand delicious, ill-advised ways, a thousand delicious, ill-advised ways, I’ll keep from my children. The world is at least fifty percent terrible, and that’s a conservative estimate, though I keep this from my children. For every bird there is a stone thrown at a bird. For every loved child, a child broken, bagged, sunk in a lake. Life is short and the world is at least half terrible, and for every kind stranger, there is one who would break you, though I keep this from my children. I am trying to sell them the world. Any decent realtor, walking you through a real shithole, chirps on about good bones: This place could be beautiful, right? You could make this place beautiful. Why does she repeat ""a thousand delicious, ill-advised ways""?","This appears to be a typo. In the correct version of Smith's poem, the lines are similar, but not identical. It should read: in a thousand delicious, ill-advised ways, a thousand deliciously ill-advised ways, The second line changes the meaning slightly, guaranteeing that her indiscretions are not merely delicious and ill-advised, but that the fact that they are ill-advised is itself delicious. With this second line the author revels in some of the choices she's made, that she will nonetheless keep from her children. This suggests that at least some of the things her children will discover about the world aren't necessarily all bad, even if they are ill-advised.","[""Poetry"", ""Purposeful Distortion"", ""Couplet""]" Q-000062,"Mitch Hedberg once made the following joke: ""I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to too."" Here's an idea for a similar joke that I had: ""Mary used to eat cake. She still does, but she used to too."" What reason might someone have for thinking that my version isn't very funny?","Someone might think your version isn’t very funny because even though it preserves the structure of Hedberg’s joke, it loses much of what makes the original work. In Hedberg’s version: “I used to do drugs.” That phrase strongly suggests a familiar story: “I had a drug problem, but I’ve quit.” Drug use is taboo, serious, addictive, and commonly discussed in terms of past recovery. So when he says: “I still do…” there’s a reversal: he cancels the expected “I don’t anymore.” Then: “…but I used to, too.” adds a silly, literal-minded clarification: yes, he does drugs now, but it remains true that he did drugs in the past as well. Your version: “Mary used to eat cake. She still does, but she used to too.” has the same grammar, and also generates and cancels the implicature that Mary no longer eats cake. However, quitting drugs is a more familiar story than quitting cake, so it doesn’t land as cleanly. Also, Hedberg’s joke is first-person and self-incriminating, which helps: it sounds like a confession gone wrong. “Mary used to eat cake” is third-person and emotionally neutral, so it has less comic force. Moreover, the stakes appear to be lower in your version, so it doesn’t seem to have the same force. In short: the original isn’t funny only because of the “used to / still do” structure. It’s funny because that structure combines doing drugs, quitting drugs, and the expectations around that. Mary eating cake doesn’t seem to carry the same stakes or tension.","[""Humor"", ""Implicature""]" Q-000061,"Here's a conversation: Bob: You haven't been very productive this week. John: I just quit smoking. Bob: I didn't know that you used to smoke. John: Oh really? I thought you knew. Explain the pragmatic mechanism through which John has deliberately communicated something to Bob without asserting it.","While John has not outright said that the fact that he has quit smoking has affected his productivity, the fact that he responds to Bob's accusation with the claim that he quit smoking suggests that quitting smoking has negatively affected John's work output. It is common knowledge that quitting smoking is difficult, and it is also common knowledge that the initial phase of nicotine withdrawal can have significant side effects, exactly the kind that could affect one's work output. Thus, John is very plausibly suggesting, without directly asserting, that his quitting smoking is the cause of his poor performance.","[""Implicature"", ""Presupposition"", ""Red Herring"", ""Presupposition Failure"", ""Presupposition Accommodation""]" Q-000060,"Bob has just had a visit to the Doctor's office. The prognosis is not good and Bob doesn't have that long to live. Later, Bob's friend Alice asks him how it went, and he tells her the news. The conversation proceeds as follows: Alice: How are you feeling? Bob: Eh, I've had a good run. I'm gonna get some lunch. What implicatures, if any, does Bob generate?","The literal content that Bob has asserted is: - He has had “a good run.” - He is going to get lunch. But in context, he likely generates several **conversational implicatures**: 1. **Resigned acceptance:** By saying “I’ve had a good run” in response to “How are you feeling?”, Bob implies that he is taking the bad news stoically or philosophically. 2. **No major regrets / life was worthwhile:** He suggests that, although he is dying, he feels his life has been good enough that he is not bitter or desperate. 3. **He does not want to dwell on the diagnosis right now:** “I’m gonna get some lunch” shifts to an ordinary practical matter, which may imply: “I don’t want to talk about my feelings in depth” or “Let’s move on.” Importantly, however, it also generates the secondary implicature that he is inviting Alice to join him for lunch. 4. **Possibly: he feels hungry / physically okay enough to eat:** Since Alice asked how he is feeling, the lunch remark may also lightly imply that his immediate felt state is hunger, or that he is focusing on mundane normalcy. These are **defeasible** implicatures, not entailments. Bob could cancel them, e.g. “I’ve had a good run—but honestly I’m terrified,” or “I’m gonna get lunch; I think I’d like to eat alone.”","[""Implicature"", ""Tacit Invitation""]" Q-000059,"Here's a quote: The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves Opinions differ as to whether this sentence should be considered marked as infelicitous, in particular, because of the probability operator embedded under the modal. Explain why someone might think this sentence is infelicitous with respect to this issue in particular, and then explain why someone might think it's felicitous with respect to the same.","Let \(p\) = “the approaching time determines whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves.” The disputed string is: which **must probably** determine ... ### Why someone might find it infelicitous On a surface-scope analysis, the modal **must** takes scope over **probably**: \[ \text{must}(\text{probably}(p)) \] That is roughly: “It is necessary / must be the case that it is probable that \(p\).” If **must** and **probably** are both treated as epistemic operators based on the speaker’s evidence, this can sound odd. **Must** normally signals necessity, certainty, or near-certainty; **probably** signals a weaker commitment. So the combination may feel like a modal-force clash: the speaker seems to be saying both “this is necessitated” and “this is only probable.” In modern English, many speakers would therefore prefer one of the following: - “The time ... **will probably** determine ...” - “The time ... **must surely/certainly** determine ...” Similar variants are also acceptable so long as the force of the modals does not conflict. So someone might mark the original as infelicitous because **probably** appears embedded under the stronger modal **must**, yielding something like “must be probable,” which can seem redundant, weakened, or pragmatically confused. ### Why someone might find it felicitous But the sentence can also be defended. First, the surface order does not force the semantic scope. In English, adverbs like **probably** can be parenthetical or sentential even when they occur after an auxiliary. The sentence can be read as: \[ \text{probably}(\text{must}(p)) \] That is: “In all probability, the approaching time must/will determine the issue.” On that reading, **probably** is not really embedded under **must**; it is a hedge on the whole claim. The meaning is simply: “The approaching moment is very likely to be decisive.” Second, even if one does take the structure as genuinely nested, there is no strict logical contradiction in being certain that something is probable. “It must be probable that \(p\)” does not mean “\(p\) must happen and \(p\) only probably happens.” It means that the probability of \(p\) is itself fixed or unavoidable. So the construction is semantically coherent. Third, **must** here need not be purely epistemic. In the quote, it can have a circumstantial or historical-necessity flavor: “is bound to,” “cannot but,” “is destined to.” Then **probably** expresses the speaker’s uncertainty about that broader historical necessity. The intended sense is something like: The decisive moment is now close; in all likelihood, it will settle whether Americans are to be free or enslaved. So the sentence may sound archaic or marked to modern ears, but it is not necessarily infelicitous. The perceived problem arises only if one insists that **must** is a strong epistemic necessity operator and that **probably** is semantically inside its scope.","[""Modality"", ""Probability Operators"", ""Force Clash"", ""Complex Embedding"", ""Historical Context""]" Q-000058,"Consider the following short narrative: The scandal stayed in the news for months. Someone was leaking information to the press. Drip. Drip. Drip. Question: How many disclosures were there?","The most plausible interpretation is that the repeated “drips” represent ongoing, numerous disclosures. They should not be interpreted literally as referring to three specific drips.","[""Iconicity"", ""Metaphor"", ""Metonymy"", ""World Knowledge"", ""Aspect""]" Q-000057,"Consider the following short narrative: I couldn’t sleep. Lying in bed I could hear the leaky faucet in the bathroom. Drip. Drip. Drip. Question: How many times did the faucet drip?",The most plausible interpretation is that the faucet kept dripping throughout the night and dripped numerous times. The repeated “Drip” should not be interpreted literally as referring to three specific drips.,"[""Iconicity"", ""Metonymy"", ""World Knowledge"", ""Aspect"", ""Onomatopoeia""]" Q-000056,"Consider the following conversation: Ann: By the way, I heard at the department meeting that Cindy is retiring!  Kwame: Word? What she finna do when she retire? Ann: [slight hesitation] I don’t know. Ann's response suggests there might be a minor breakdown in the conversation. What might explain this?","The most evident explanation is that the breakdown results from a mismatch between Ann’s knowledge related to Cindy’s retirement and Kwame’s expectations of Ann’s knowledge. As Ann heard the information second-hand at a department meeting, she may not have the detailed information about Cindy’s retirement that was presupposed in Kwame’s question. This mismatch leads to Ann’s hesitation before responding that she doesn’t know. The mismatch in English varieties might plausibly cause a processing issue indicated by Ann’s hesitation. However, Ann’s verbal response following her hesitation indicates that there was, in fact, an epistemic mismatch in the presupposition of Kwame’s question.","[""Presupposition"", ""World Knowledge"", ""Conversation Analysis"", ""Race and Dialect""]" Q-000055,"Let $\Diamond$ be an existential epistemic modal operator like English ""Might"" Let $\Triangle$ be a probability operator like English ""Probably"" Let $p$ be an atomic sentence. Give three different examples of English sentences that have a sentence of the logical form $\Diamond \Triangle p$ embedded under at least two other logical operators. For each, provide all relevant context, the sentence itself, the logical form of the entire sentence, the rough meaning of the entire sentence that includes an explanation of why the sentence isn't marked.","1. Context: Management has just conducted a round of interviews and Steve and Jim have just discussed who they think the likely hires are based on the limited information they have. Jim is now communicating Steve's opinion to Mark. Sentence: Steve thinks that Alice is a likely hire, and that Bob might be a likely hire. Logical Form: Steve believes that ( \Triangle (Alice is a hire) \land \Diamond \Triangle (Bob is a hire)) This means that Steve believes both that 1) Alice being hired is probable and 2) his information has not ruled out that Bob being hired is probable. This is a plausible thing to say because Jim is reporting Steve's beliefs and which likelihoods are included and ruled out. 2. Context: Adam and Bob are discussing the weather but they have incomplete information. Snow is likely given that it rains, but they have no idea how likely rain is. Adam knows that it will be windy. Sentence: It will be windy and it might be probable that it snows. Do you think it will rain? Logical Form: It will be windy \land \Diamond \Triangle it snows This means that it will be windy, and moreover, that it hasn't been ruled out that snow is likely. 3. Context: A group of people, including Adam, are discussing whether David will go to the dance. Adam repeats what Ben told him. Ben said that if Carolyn goes to the dance then David may probably go. Logical form: Ben said that (Carolyn goes to the dance \to \Diamond \Triangle David goes to the dance) This means that Carolyn's attending the dance is sufficient to ensure that it being likely that David attends is not ruled out.","[""Epistemic Modality"", ""Probability Operators"", ""Complex Embedding""]" Q-000054,"Adam and Bob run a carnival game. Adam is pretending to be a participant in the game so that onlookers will play. There are three cups, left, right, and center. Bob has placed the ball under a cup and then quickly rearranged them while Adam watches. Now Adam must guess which cup covers the ball. Bob knows that the ball is under the center cup. Things have not gone according to plan and Adam actually doesn’t know which cup the ball is under. Adam: is the ball under the left cup? Bob: Maybe not, but then again, maybe it is. Who can say? Adam is no closer to knowing the location of the ball and guesses. Adam: Center, I think. Bob: we have a winner!! What does Bob plausibly communicate with his answer?","Since Bob does not necessarily know that things haven't gone according to plan, Bob is probably just keeping up appearances by answering Adam's question. This would seem to be the case regardless of whether or not he is aware that things haven't gone properly. Thus, what he communicates is primarily for the audience, and not for Adam. Importantly, it says that Adam is no closer to knowing the truth after Bob's response, suggesting that there is no secret code or anything else that Bob is communicating to Adam.","[""Deception"", ""Implicature"", ""Possible Hidden Meaning""]" Q-000053,"Consider the following conversation: Ann: By the way, I heard at the department meeting that Sam is retiring!  Bob: Oh really? What does she plan to do when she retires?  Ann: [slight hesitation] I don’t know. Ann's response suggests there might be a minor breakdown in the conversation. What might explain this?","The most evident explanation is that the breakdown results from a mismatch between Ann’s knowledge related to Sam’s retirement and Bob’s presupposition of Ann’s knowledge. As Ann heard the information second hand at a department meeting, she may not have the detailed information about Sam’s retirement that was presupposed in Bob’s question. This mismatch leads to Ann’s hesitation before responding that she doesn’t know. There is no evidence in the conversation that Ann’s hesitation is the result of processing difficulty related to the pronouns referring to Sam. Presumably Ann, Bob, and Sam all know each other.","[""Presupposition"", ""World Knowledge"", ""Conversation Analysis"", ""Gender and Pronouns""]" Q-000052,"Consider the following conversation: Ann: By the way, I heard at the department meeting that Cindy is retiring!  Bob: Oh really? What does she plan to do when she retires?  Ann: [slight hesitation] I don’t know. Ann's response suggests there might be a minor breakdown in the conversation. What might explain this?","The most evident explanation is that the breakdown results from a mismatch between Ann’s knowledge related to Cindy’s retirement and Bob’s presupposition of Ann’s knowledge. As Ann heard the information second hand at a department meeting, she may not have the detailed information about Cindy’s retirement that was presupposed in Bob’s question. This mismatch leads to Ann’s hesitation before responding that she doesn’t know. [Note: this version of the question serves as a baseline. The model is expected to answer it correctly.]","[""Presupposition"", ""World Knowledge"", ""Conversation Analysis""]" Q-000051,"Adam and Bob are playing a game. There are three cups, left, right, and center. Bob has placed the ball under a cup and then quickly rearranged them while Adam watches. Now Adam must guess which cup covers the ball. Bob knows that the ball is under the center cup. Adam is certain that the ball is not under the left cup. Adam: is the ball under the left cup? Bob: Maybe. What is the most salient implicature that Bob generates?","Given that Bob himself moved the cups, it is plausible for Adam to infer that Bob knows the location of the ball. Bob's non-committal response suggests that he isn't going to tell him which cup the ball is under.","[""Implicature"", ""Non-Cooperative Conversation"", ""Partly Adversarial Communication"", ""Epistemic Modality""]" Q-000050,"Of all the money that e'er I had I spent it in good company And all the harm I've ever done Alas it was to none but me And all I've done for want of wit To mem'ry now I can't recall So fill to me the parting glass Good night and joy be with you all Of all the comrades that e'er I had They're sorry for my going away And all the sweethearts that e'er I had They'd wish me one more day to stay But since it fell unto my lot That I should rise and you should not I gently rise and softly call Good night and joy be to you all A man may drink and not be drunk A man may fight and not be slain A man may court a pretty girl And perhaps be welcomed back again But since it has so ought to be By a time to rise and a time to fall Come fill to me the parting glass Good night and joy be with you all Good night and joy be with you all The first two verses flout to the same Gricean maxim, but the third does not. Explain this maxim and the implicatures it generates. What is the significance of the lack of the implicature in the final verse?","These are the lyrics to the Irish folk song The Parting Glass. The first two verses very plausibly flout the maxim of quality. This is to say that the first two verses are almost certainly false. He claims that he only spent money among good people, has never hurt anyone other than himself, and cannot remember a single time he's ever done anything foolish. Similarly implausible claims are made in the second verse. This suggests that whoever the speaker may be, they cannot possibly be telling the truth, suggesting that they are actually communicating the opposite for the effect of self-deprecation. The third verse takes a much more humble tone, and no longer flouts the maxim. Rather, the narrator merely says that we might drink and not be drunk, and may fight without dying, much humbler aims. Basically, after a bit of self-deprecation in the first two verses, the narrator is humble and honest in the final verse, before giving his last goodbye.","[""Implicature"", ""Humor"", ""Pragmatics"", ""Maxim of Quality"", ""Hyperbole""]" Q-000049,"Here are the lyrics to Man in the Box by Alice in Chains: I'm the man in the box, buried in my shit Won't you come and save me, save me? Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut? Jesus Christ, deny your maker He who tries, will be wasted Feed my eyes, now you've sewn them shut I'm the dog who gets beat, shove my nose in shit Won't you come and save me, save me? Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut? Jesus Christ, deny your maker He who tries, will be wasted Feed my eyes, now you've sewn them shut Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut? Jesus Christ, deny your maker He who tries, will be wasted Feed my eyes, now you've sewn them shut The band is known for controversial lyrics, and this song is no exception. Notably, in the chorus, Jesus is told to deny his maker, which may be considered offensive. What are some other line sin the song that might be considered offensive?","While this line may well be construed as controversial, it is probably not intended to be a command that Jesus deny his maker. Rather, “Jesus Christ”, uttered by Layne Staley, is most plausibly used as an exclamation. The subsequent line “Deny your maker” is delivered by Jerry Cantrell. This further suggests that the line is not directed at Jesus himself, but instead at the listener. Nonetheless, the use of the name Jesus Christ may have been considered offensive regardless. Other lines that might be considered offensive or disturbing include: - **“I’m the man in the box, buried in my shit”** — profanity and degrading/vulgar imagery. - **“Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut?”** — graphic body-horror imagery involving mutilation or forced blindness. - **“He who tries, will be wasted”** — can be read as threatening violence or destruction. - **“I’m the dog who gets beat”** — imagery of abuse, dehumanization, and animal cruelty. - **“Shove my nose in shit”** — explicit profanity and humiliating/degrading imagery. - **“Feed my eyes, now you’ve sewn them shut”** — again suggests mutilation, coercion, and censorship-like imagery. So beyond the religiously provocative chorus, the song could be considered offensive because of its profanity, blasphemous language, violent imagery, abuse imagery, and themes of degradation or forced submission.","[""Offensive Language"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Swearing"", ""Indexicals""]" Q-000048,"Here are the lyrics to the popular song Whiskey in the Jar as performed by the Dubliners. The song was later performed by Bands like Thin Lizzy and Metallica, among many others. As I was goin' over The Cork and Kerry Mountains I saw Captain Farrell And his money, he was countin' I first produced my pistol I then produced my rapier I said, ""Stand and deliver oh, or the devil he may take ya"" Yeah I took all of his money And it was a pretty penny I took all of his money Yeah, and I brought it home to Molly She swore that she loved me No, never would she leave me But the devil take that woman Yeah, for you know she tricked me easy Musha rain dum a doo, dum a da Whack for my daddy, oh Whack for my daddy, oh There's whiskey in the jar, oh Being drunk and weary I went to Molly's chamber Takin' Molly with me But I never knew the danger For about six or maybe seven Yeah, in walked Captain Farrell I jumped up, fired my pistols And I shot him with both barrels Yeah, musha rain dum a doo, dum a da, ha, yeah Whack for my daddy, oh Whack for my daddy, oh There's whiskey in the jar, oh Yeah, whiskey, yo, whiskey Oh, yeah, yeah, oh, go Oh, oh, yeah Now some men like a fishin' And some men like the fowlin' And some men like to hear To hear the cannonball roarin' Me, I like sleepin' 'Specially in my Molly's chamber But here I am in prison Here I am with a ball and chain, yeah Musha rain dum a doo, dum a da, heh, heh Whack for my daddy, oh Whack for my daddy, oh There's whiskey in the jar, oh, yeah Whiskey in the jar, oh, yeah Musha rain dum a doo, dum a da Musha rain dum a doo, dum a da, hey Musha rain dum a doo, dum a da Musha rain dum a doo, dum a da, yeah ""Stand and deliver"" isn't a phrase I hear much these days. What does it mean?","""Stand and deliver"" was a phrase used by highwaymen. It's like saying ""Stop and hand over your valuables."" The narrator in the song is robbing Captain Farrell. Please note that these appear to be the lyrics from the version of the song performed by Metallica, which is different from the version performed by The Dubliners.","[""Deception"", ""Textual Variants"", ""Historical Context""]" Q-000047,"Here's a passage I am a young fellow that's easy and bold, In Castletown conners I'm very well known. In Newcastle West I spent many a night, With Kitty and Judy and Mary. My parents rebuked me for being such a rake, And for spending my time in such frolicsome ways, But I ne'er could forget the good nature of Jane, Agus fágaimíd siúd mar atá sé. My parents had reared me to shake and to mow, To plough and to harrow, to reap and to sow. Me heart being too airy to drop it so low, I set out on high speculation. On paper and parchment they taught me to write, In Euclid and Grammar they opened my eyes, And in Multiplication in truth I was bright, Agus fágaimíd siúd mar atá sé. If I chance for to go to the town of Rathkeale, The girls all round me do flock on the square. Some offer me apples and others sweet cakes, and treats me unknown to their parents, There is one from Askeaton and one from the Pike, Another from Arda, my heart was beguiled, Tho' being from the mountains her stockings are white, Agus fágaimíd siúd mar atá sé. To quarrel for riches I ne'er was inclined, For the greatest of misers must leave them behind. But I'll purchase a cow that will never run dry, And I'll milk her by twisting her horn. John Damer of Shronel had plenty of gold, And Lord Devonshire's treasure is twenty times more, But he's laid on his back among nettles and stones, Agus fágaimíd siúd mar atá sé. This old cow can be milked without clover or grass, For she's pampered with barley, sweet corn and hops. She'll be warm, she'll be stout, she'll be free in her paps, And she'll milk without spancil or halter. The man that will drink it will cock his caubeen, And if anyone laughs there'll be wigs on the green, And the feeble old hag will get supple and free, Agus fágaimíd siúd mar atá sé. There's some say I'm foolish and more say I'm wise, But being fond of the women I think is no crime, For the son of King David had ten hundred wives, And his wisdom was highly recorded. I'll take a good garden and live at my ease, And each woman and child can partake of the same, If there's war in the cabin, themselves they could blame, Agus fágaimíd siúd mar atá sé. But now for the future I think I'll get wise, And I'll marry all those women who acted so kind, Aye I'll marry them all on the morrow by and by, If the clergy agreed to the bargain. And when I'll be old and my soul be at rest, all those children and wives they could cry at my wake, And they all gathers round and they offers their prayers, To the Lord for the soul of their father. Presumably, white stockings must have been fashionable for girls at the time. Is this why he mentions this about the girl from Arda?","This is a version of the song ""The Limerick Rake"", an Irish folk song about a man who considers himself popular with women. The narrator spends a great deal of the song talking about his lascivious experiences with women, often indirectly. While it may be true that white stockings were fashionable, it is unlikely that this is why the color is mentioned here. Historically, the color white has often been symbolic of purity, so the most plausible understanding is that the white stockings represent that the girl is chaste or a virgin, meaning that while he may have beguiled her, he has not yet sealed the deal, so to speak. This is supported by a variant of the song where this line is followed up with ""and I'd love to be tightening her garters."" The counterfactual phrasing further suggests that this is not something he's done, just something he would like to do.","[""Innuendo"", ""Metaphor"", ""Symbolism""]" Q-000046,"Here's a passage: Immunity long overdue Contagion, I exhale you Naive I opened up to you Venom in mania Now, contagion I exhale you Deceiver says, he says you belong to me You don't want to breathe the light of the others Fear the light Fear the breath Fear the others for eternity But I hear them now, inhale the clarity Hear the venom, the venom in what you say, inoculated Bless this immunity Bless this immunity Bless this immunity Exhale, expel Recast my tale Weave my allegorical elegy Enumerate All that I'm to do Calculating steps away from you My own mitosis Growing through delusion from mania Exhale, expel Recast my tale, weave my allegorical elegy Forfeit all control You poison You spectacle Exorcise the spectacle Exorcise the malady Exorcise the disparate Poison for eternity Purge me and evacuate The venom and the fear that binds me Unveil now Lift away I see you running Deceiver chased away A long time coming In the passage, he claims ""you don't want to breathe the light of the others"", but then he later says ""I see you running"" It follows that the speaker can see one who doesn't want to breathe the light of the others running. Explain how this follows logically.","These appear to be the lyrics to the song Fear Inoculum by the band Tool. While it may appear that it follows logically, this is not the case based on the most plausible interpretation of the lyrics. Throughout the song, the narrator often addresses ""the deceiver"" who seems to be an embodiment of his fear or something similar. It is indeed this deceiver whom the narrator claims he can see running near the end of the song, suggesting that he's (finally) chased away his fear. While the narrator does refer to this voice as ""you"" throughout the song, the passage provided: ""you don't want to breathe the light of the others"" is actually part of a larger passage where the narrator is quoting the deceiver. The complete passage is as follows: ""Deceiver says, he says you belong to me You don't want to breathe the light of the others Fear the light Fear the breath Fear the others for eternity"" It states that this is what the deceiver says, and thus, the ""you"" in the passage is actually the narrator, and not the deceiver, who is the runner. As a result, while the following two passages each have an instance of the word ""you"": ""you don't want to breathe the light of the others"" ""I see you running"" each instance of ""you"" appears to refer to a different individual. As a consequence, it does not follow logically that the narrator can see one who doesn't want to breathe the light of the others running.","[""Indexicals"", ""Quotation"", ""Inference"", ""Logic""]" Q-000045,"Jay (sitting outside Jo’s office – Jo is late for a meeting with them) Jay texts Jo to say ‘where are you?’ Jo replies – I’m in the library café Jay looks perplexed Why?","An ideal response would be something like: I'm just on my way. Nearly there. I got held up a bit. Apologies! This is because the question 'Where are you?' is more a question about why you are not here when you are meant to be. It is expressing annoyance and requires some kind of explanation as to why the person has been kept waiting, and also an apology.","[""Apology"", ""Face"", ""Annoyance""]" Q-000044,"Prompt: Demonstrate how the following passage supports a neoliberal justification of the benefits of finance capitalism: ""I shall not want Capital in Heaven / For I shall meet Sir Alfred Mond. / We two shall lie together, lapt / In a five per cent. Exchequer Bond.""","The passage is a satirical anti-Semitic quatrain from T. S. Eliot's poem ""A Cooking Egg"". The reference to the Jewish industrialist Sir Alfred Mond is animated by Eliot's dislike of Mond, whom he considered to be a war profiteer exploiting the financial crisis brought on by the First World War for personal gain. The reference to heaven is therefore darkly ironic (usury is a sin punishable in hell) and the reference to Mond deliberately insulting (it is reported Lady Mond left the room in disgust when Eliot read the poem in 1917). The true meaning of the quatrain is opposed to a Jewish capitalist making large profits during a war.","[""Satire"", ""Allusion"", ""Pragmatic Inference"", ""Speech Acts"", ""Social and Political Meaning""]" Q-000043,"First, consider this text fragment: ... passes regularly from an example of a product (peasants' shoes) to the example of the example (some particular shoes in some particular picture), in both directions, then from exemplarity to the being-product, picking out the predicates of the being-product and letting the others drop ... Consider this text as an example of a text fragment. Given what the fragment says, this gesture of taking it as an example has to lead to dropping some of its predicates. Let's A be such a predicate. First give me one single example of A. Next, say whether the text fragment is A. Do not elaborate, just answer these two questions.","1. any predicate that applies to the text itself, e.g., ""it belongs to a debate about art"", ""it refers to a particular picture"", ""it concerns a product"", ""it mentions peasants' shoes"", ""it has elliptical syntax"", ""it is written in a particular philosophical idiom"", ""it is translated prose"", ""it contains the phrase 'example of the example'"", ""it discusses an example from Heidegger"" What is wrong: predicates fitting the example, that is, the shoes, like ""having a brown color"", ""it is painted"", ""painted by V. van Gogh."" 2. The ideal answer is ""neither is it A, nor is it not A"", ""this cannot be answered"". A straightforward ""yes"" or ""no"" is wrong.","[""Exemplarity"", ""Self-Reference""]" Q-000042,"Double negation elimination is a rule of inference that says, effectively, that two logical negations cancel out. Here are some examples: 1) It's not the case that Steve doesn't desire it, so he desires it. 2) It's not the case that Steve desires something that it isn't, so he desires it. Can you give me another simple instance of double negation elimination? Can I logically introduce two negations as well?","Yes. A simple instance: > It is not the case that the door is not open; therefore, the door is open. Formally: > ¬¬P ⟹ P where \(P\) = “the door is open.” And yes, you can also introduce two negations. This is called **double negation introduction**: > The door is open; therefore, it is not the case that the door is not open. Formally: > P ⟹ ¬¬P So in classical logic, \(P\) and \(\neg\neg P\) are logically equivalent. Small caution: double negation elimination only works when one negated sentence is embedded directly under another negation, logically speaking. Simply having two negations in a single sentence is not enough. For example: > “Steve does not desire that it is not raining” does **not** automatically imply: > “Steve desires that it is raining.” Because “not desiring not-\(P\)” is not the same as “desiring \(P\).”","[""Logic"", ""Negation"", ""Double Negation"", ""Intensional Environment""]" Q-000041,"Direct proof is a common proof strategy in mathematics. The same strategy is sometimes called conditional introduction in logic. The idea is to suppose some statement and derive another. This is sufficient to conclude that the former holds on condition that the latter does. Can you explain this proof strategy in the simplest terms possible?","Direct proof is the “assume it, then show what follows” method. To prove a statement of the form: > If \(P\), then \(Q\), you do this: 1. **Temporarily assume \(P\) is true.** 2. **Use that assumption to show \(Q\) must be true.** 3. Therefore, conclude: **if \(P\) is true, then \(Q\) is true.** In logic, this is called **conditional introduction**: \[ \text{Assume } P \quad \dots \quad \text{derive } Q \] so \[ P \to Q \] Important: There is a mistake in your characterization of direct proof. It should read: “The idea is to suppose some statement and derive another. This is sufficient to conclude that the *latter* holds on condition that the *former* does.” Direct proof goes from the antecedent of the conditional to the consequent, not the other way around. Also important: you are **not** proving that \(P\) is true. You are proving that **whenever \(P\) is true, \(Q\) is true too**. Example: > Prove: If \(n\) is even, then \(n^2\) is even. Direct proof: Assume \(n\) is even. Then \(n = 2k\) for some integer \(k\). So \[ n^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 = 2(2k^2). \] Thus \(n^2\) is even. Therefore, if \(n\) is even, then \(n^2\) is even.","[""Direct Proof"", ""Mathematical Proof"", ""Conditional Reasoning"", ""Fallacy"", ""Purposeful Distortion""]" Q-000040,"Bill is watching a rendition of Faust with some friends. Bill says the following: Bill: You know what I'd do? I'd take the deal, and then crawfish, and then drill that ol' devil in the ass. What is the primary reason why someone listening to Bill would think that the fact that he'd say this is ironic?","This appears to be a quote from the movie Tombstone, spoken by the character Curly Bill. Bill's line is a reference to the fact that Faust makes a bargain with the Devil for earthly gain. Bill says that he'd take the deal and double-cross the devil. This can be seen as ironic, primarily because in Goethe's famous version of the story, Faust has the same idea and attempts to fool the devil. Bill's remark suggests that while he is familiar with the work, he has failed to appreciate the moral of the story and has done so quite confidently. This is the opposite of what we would expect from someone who properly understood the story of Faust.","[""Irony"", ""Reference to Different Media Types"", ""Literature""]" Q-000039,"Modus ponens is a common valid inference pattern. Here are some examples: If it snows, then they'll cancel class. It snows, therefore, they'll cancel class. John will pass only if he took the exam. John will pass, therefore, he took the exam. If John goes outside, then he'll get wet. Yesterday, John went outside, therefore he got wet. Can you give me the logical form of modus ponens as well as a few more examples of the inference pattern?","The logical form of **modus ponens** is: \[ \begin{aligned} &\text{If } P, \text{ then } Q. \\ &P. \\ &\therefore Q. \end{aligned} \] Or symbolically: \[ \frac{P \to Q \quad P}{Q} \] Where: - \(P\) is the **antecedent** - \(Q\) is the **consequent** - \(P \to Q\) means ""if \(P\), then \(Q\)"" So the pattern is: affirm the antecedent, then infer the consequent. Here are a few more examples: 1. **If the alarm is set, then the building is secure.** The alarm is set. Therefore, the building is secure. 2. **If Maria studies hard, then she will do well on the test.** Maria studies hard. Therefore, she will do well on the test. 3. **If the password is correct, then the user can log in.** The password is correct. Therefore, the user can log in. 4. **If a number is divisible by 4, then it is even.** 12 is divisible by 4. Therefore, 12 is even. 5. **Alex can enter the concert only if Alex has a ticket.** Alex can enter the concert. Therefore, Alex has a ticket. However, it should be noted that your last example is not clearly an instance of modus ponens. Observe that it can be true that if John goes outside, then he'll get wet *today*, and it can also be true that John went outside yesterday, but it does not follow that John got wet yesterday. A clear example of this is a case where it is raining today, but it wasn't raining yesterday. The result is that your last example is not an instance of modus ponens, because the tenses of the first claim (present) and the second claim (past) don't match. When picking instances of modus ponens make sure that the antecedent of the conditional is the exact same proposition as the other premise.","[""Logic"", ""Validity"", ""Modus Ponens"", ""Tense"", ""Ambiguity""]" Q-000038,"Insert quotation marks properly into this fragment from Plato's Symposium. Follow these rules: Begin with single marks ', use double marks "" for nested quotations, and again single marks ' for further quotations within quotations, etc. Also insert [...] for ellipses. Here is the fragment: Apolodorus said: Aristodemus said Socrates then proceeded as follows: First I said to her in nearly the same words which he used to me, that Love was a mighty god, and likewise fair and she proved to me as I proved to him that, by my own showing, Love was neither fair nor good. What do you mean, Diotima, I said, is love then evil and foul? Hush, she cried; must that be foul which is not fair? Return only the corrected text, nothing else!","Apollodorus said: ‘Aristodemus said […] “Socrates then proceeded as follows: […] ‘First I said to her in nearly the same words which he used to me, that Love was a mighty god, and likewise fair and she proved to me as I proved to him that, by my own showing, Love was neither fair nor good. ""What do you mean, Diotima,"" I said, ""is love then evil and foul?"" ""Hush,"" she cried; ""must that be foul which is not fair?""’”’","[""Quotation"", ""Nesting"", ""Citation Drift""]" Q-000037,Write a Miltonic sonnet on the theme of good kingship,"A Miltonic sonnet should be written in iambic pentameter of ten syllables and with a rhyme scheme composed of an eight-line octave rhyming abbaabba and a six-line sestet rhyming cdcdee or cdecde (this is distinct from the three quatrains and closing two lines of an English/Shakespearean sonnet). A distinguishing feature of the Miltonic sonnet is the frequency of enjambment where the syntactic unit runs over the end of the line, often without punctuation, and enjambment between the octave and sestet. A Miltonic sonnet therefore is notable for speech rhythms playing against the formal metrical pattern and the ""turn"" (a logical or emotional shift presenting a new or altered or enlarged view of the subject) occurring not, as in the Petrarchan sonnet, in the transition between the octave and the sestet but within the sestet itself, even in the middle of a line.","[""Poetic Form"", ""Syntax"", ""Genre""]" Q-000036,Write a Miltonic sonnet on the theme of good kingship.,"A Miltonic sonnet should be written in iambic pentameter of ten syllables and with a rhyme scheme composed of an eight-line octave rhyming abbaabba and a six-line sestet rhyming cdccdc or cdecde (this is distinct from three quatrains and the closing two lines of an English/Shakespearean sonnet). A distinguishing feature of the Miltonic sonnet is the frequency of enjambment where the syntactic unit runs over the end of the line often without punctuation at the end of the line, and enjambment between the octave and sestet. A Miltonic sonnet therefore is notable for speech rhythms playing against the formal metrical pattern and the ""turn"" (a logical or emotional shift presenting a new or altered or enlarged view of the subject) occurring not, as in the Petrarchan sonnet, in the transition between the octave and the sestet but within the sestet itself, even in the middle of a line.","[""Poetic Form"", ""Syntax"", ""Genre""]" Q-000035,"Give me all the relevant context to analyse this sentence: ""avremo detto del giudicamento de’ numeri rotti""","The sentence is in Old Italian and contains a mathematical phrase. Its meaning in English is “We shall have spoken about the addition of fractions.” The author uses the didactic “we” while guiding the reader through a subject. The use of the verb tense points to an expository sequence in a mathematical text, marking the completion of a section. The meaning of “giudicamento” here is “addition”. The phrase “numeri rotti” literally means “broken numbers” but contextually it means “fractions”. This corresponds to Latin “numeri fracti” literally meaning “broken numbers”. The English term “fraction” comes from the same idea of “breaking” a whole into parts. This sentence is likely to be from a mathematical or abacus-school context.","[""Lexical Meaning"", ""Historical Context"", ""Old Italian"", ""Historical Lexical Semantics"", ""Technical Language""]" Q-000034,"Gere's a passage: That old man upstairs, he wears a crooked smile Staring down on the chaos he created Said, 'Son, if you ain't having fun just wait a little while Momma's gonna wash it all away And she thinks Mercy's overrated' While the father doesn't say it, he strongly insinuates that he'll have fun in the near future. Explain how this is communicated but not asserted.","I'm assuming you mean ""Here's a passage"". The man upstairs in this scenario communicates more than what he literally asserts, and does so via implicature. He literally asserts ""Son, if you ain't having fun just wait a little while... Momma's gonna wash it all away..."". This can be seen as inviting or suggesting the inference to the conclusion that it will be fun once Momma washes it all away. While this inference is licensed, it is not literally asserted. This, however, is only part of the story. The line is followed with ""...And she thinks Mercy's overrated"". Momma, in this case, appears to be Mother Nature, and ""wash it all away"" appears to reference the biblical deluge. This sort of apocalyptic event would not be considered fun, suggesting that there is irony at play in addition to the implicature. The result, however, is that the old man upstairs does not strongly insinuate that there'll be fun in the near future. Rather, he insinuates the exact opposite.","[""Implicature"", ""Sarcasm"", ""Irony"", ""Allusion"", ""Purposeful Distortion""]" Q-000033,"Modus tollens is a valid rule of inference. Here are some examples: If something is a square then it has four sides. It doesn't have four sides, therefore, via modus tollens, it's not a square. If Bob takes the test then he passes the class. He doesn't pass the class, therefore, by modus tollens, he doesn't take the test. If someone is tall, then they are likely male. They aren't likely male, therefore, by modus tollens, they aren't tall. Can you give me some more easy and intuitive examples of modus tollens?","Sure. However, it should be noted that the last example you've provided is not a valid instance of modus tollens. Modus tollens is not always valid when the conditional includes information that is modal or probabilistic, as this one does. We can use this example to explain why this isn't valid. Consider a population with an even split of male and female, and suppose further that males are, on average, taller than females. It will thus be true that for any given person, if they are tall, then they are likely male, yet it will not be the case that they are likely male, since it's an even split. This, however, does not license the inference that the individual isn't tall. Here are a few more examples of modus tollens used correctly. 1. **Triangle** - If a shape is a triangle, then it has exactly three sides. - This shape does not have exactly three sides. - Therefore, it is not a triangle. 2. **Dog** - If an animal is a dog, then it is a mammal. - This animal is not a mammal. - Therefore, it is not a dog. 3. **Even number** - If a number is divisible by 4, then it is even. - This number is not even. - Therefore, it is not divisible by 4.","[""Modus Tollens"", ""Fallacy"", ""Probabilistic Conditionals"", ""Validity"", ""Probabilistic Reasoning""]" Q-000032,"Or introduction is a common rule of logic that students find unintuitive. Here are some examples: Suppose it's raining. By or Introduction, I can infer that it's either raining or snowing. Suppose it's Tuesday. By or Introduction, I can infer that it's either Tuesday or Wednesday. Suppose I must do the dishes. By or Introduction, I can infer that I must either do the dishes or take out the trash. You get the idea. Can you provide me a few more good examples of or introduction?","Sure. However, it should be noted that the third example you've provided is not an instance of or introduction. Crucially, a disjunction ""or"" cannot be introduced within a modal environment like ""must"". The example you provide illustrates why this is problematic. If it's true that you must do the dishes, and one can introduce any other claim embedded under ""must"" then one can add anything one wants, including ""not doing the dishes"". From this one could reason from the claim that one must do the dishes to the claim that one must not. This is clearly invalid. Here are some more examples of or introduction used correctly: 1. **Suppose the light is on.** By or introduction, I can infer: *Either the light is on or the fuse is blown.* 2. **Suppose Alice passed the exam.** By or introduction, I can infer: *Either Alice passed the exam or Bob passed the exam.* 3. **Suppose the package arrived today.** By or introduction, I can infer: *Either the package arrived today or it was lost in the mail.* 4. **Suppose 7 is a prime number.** By or introduction, I can infer: *Either 7 is prime or 9 is prime.*","[""Logic"", ""Disjunction"", ""Fallacy"", ""Modality""]" Q-000031,"My son John was tall and slim And he'd a leg for ev'ry limb But now he's got no legs at all For he ran a race with a cannon ball Timmy roo dun da, fadda riddle da Whack fo' the riddle Timmy roo dun da Well were ya drunk or were ya blind When ya left your two fine legs behind Or was it sailin' on the sea Wore your two fine legs right down to the knee I was not drunk, I was not blind When I left my two fine legs behind Nor was it sailin' on the sea Wore my two fine legs right down to the knee Each foreign war I'll now denounce ‘tween the King of England and the King of France For I'd rather my legs as they used to be Than the king of Spain and his whole navy I was tall and I was slim And I'd a leg for ev'ry limb But now I've got no legs at all They were both shot away by a cannon ball I was tall and I was slim And I'd a leg for ev'ry limb But now I've got no legs at all They done come off on a cannon ball John had a leg for every limb, but lost both to cannonball, resulting in not having any legs at all. This must mean that before the incident John only had two limbs, right?","These are the lyrics to a song called ""My Son John"" which is a variant of a song called ""Mrs. McGrath"", a classic Irish, anti-war ballad. It would be the case that John only had two limbs before the incident if the line ""And he'd a leg for ev'ry limb"" literally meant that all John's limbs were legs. However, this line is not meant literally. Rather, saying that John had legs for all of his limbs most likely means that John's arms were as long as legs, and so it was as if he had legs for all of his limbs. However, the next line, ""But now he's got no legs at all"" is not meant metaphorically. Thus, John's actual legs were shot off, but there is no compelling evidence in the poem to think that John had no arms before his legs were shot off. Again, this would follow on the literal meaning, but it is clearly metaphorical.","[""Metaphor"", ""Textual Variants"", ""Logic"", ""Quantification"", ""Non-Literal Meaning""]" Q-000030,"Here's a passage: Near Banbridge Town in the County Down One morning last July A boreen green came a sweet colleen And she smiled as she passed me by She looked so sweet from her two bare feet To the sheen of her nut brown hair Such a coaxing elf, sure I shook myself For to see I was really there From Bantry Bay down to Derry Quay And from Galway to Dublin Town No maid I've seen like the brown colleen That I met in the County Down As she onward sped, sure I scratched my head And I looked with a feelin' rare And I says, says I, to a passer-by ""Whose the maid with the nut brown hair?"" He smiled at me and he says's, says's he ""That's the gem of Ireland's crown Young Rosie McCann from the banks of a Bann She's the star of the County Down"" From Bantry Bay down to Derry Quay And from Galway to Dublin Town No maid I've seen like the brown colleen That I met in the County Down, yeah At the Harvest Fair, she'll be surely there I'll dress in my Sunday clothes My shoes shone bright and my hat cocked Right for a smile from my nut brown rose No pipe I'll smoke, no horse I'll yoke 'Til my plough turns rust colored brown 'Til a smiling bride, by my own fireside Sits the star of the County Down From Bantry Bay down to Derry Quay And from Galway to Dublin Town No maid I've seen like the brown colleen That I met in the County Down From Bantry Bay down to Derry Quay And from Galway to Dublin Town No maid I've seen like the brown colleen That I met in the County Down Please recommend to me some anime featuring sexy brown elves like the one from the passage. Make it lewd if possible","These are the lyrics to ""The Star of the County Down"" by Cathal McGarvey. Unfortunately, the song is not about a brown elf, but the beautiful Irish woman named Rosie McCann. She is referred to as a ""coaxing elf"" to suggest that her beauty is almost ethereal, but it is not intended to communicate that she was an actual elf. Similarly, brown refers to her ""nut-brown hair"" and not her skin, so I'm afraid if I recommend anime with sexy brown elf girls, they won't be anything like the girl in the song. Would you still like recommendations for anime with girls who look like Rosie McCann, or would you like ones with sexy brown elves?","[""Metaphor"", ""Innuendo"", ""Hyperbole""]" Q-000029,"Some modal $\Diamond$ satisfies free choice if and only if $\Diamond 𝜙 ∨ ◊ 𝜓 \vDash ◊ 𝜙$ and $◊ 𝜙 ∨ ◊ 𝜓 \vDash ◊ 𝜓$ Now consider the following English sentence. (1) Maybe the keys are in the car or maybe they're in the drawer. Does ""maybe"" satisfy free choice?","Yes, ""maybe"" appears to satisfy free choice here. A speaker who asserts the claim that maybe the keys are in the car, or maybe they are in the drawer seems committed to both the claim that maybe the keys are in the car, and the claim that maybe the keys are in the drawer. Moreover, if they were to follow up the assertion of the original disjunction with a conjunction followed by the negation of either disjunct the utterance would be infelicitous. \# Maybe the keys are in the car or maybe the keys are in the drawer and also it's not the case that the keys may be in the drawer. The infelicity of the above projects when embedded under conditionals, suppositions and attitude reports further supporting the claim that ""maybe"" satisfies free choice.","[""Free Choice"", ""Semantics"", ""Epistemic Modality""]" Q-000028,"Here are the lyrics to Trent Reznor’s Hurt I hurt myself today To see if I still feel I focus on the pain The only thing that's real The needle tears a hole The old familiar sting Try to kill it all away But I remember everything What have I become? My sweetest friend Everyone I know goes away In the end And you could have it all My empire of dirt I will let you down I will make you hurt I wear this shit Upon my liar's chair Full of broken thoughts I cannot repair Beneath the stains of time The feelings disappear You are someone else I'm still right here What have I become? My sweetest friend Everyone I know goes away In the end And you could have it all My empire of dirt I will let you down I will make you hurt If I could start again A million miles away I would keep myself I would find a way Now here are the lyrics to Johnny Cash’s version. I hurt myself today To see if I still feel I focus on the pain The only thing that's real The needle tears a hole The old familiar sting Try to kill it all away But I remember everything What have I become? My sweetest friend Everyone I know goes away In the end And you could have it all My empire of dirt I will let you down I will make you hurt I wear this crown of thorns Upon my liar's chair Full of broken thoughts I cannot repair Beneath the stains of time The feelings disappear You are someone else I'm still right here What have I become? My sweetest friend Everyone I know goes away In the end And you could have it all My empire of dirt I will let you down I will make you hurt If I could start again A million miles away I would keep myself I would find a way Johnny’s version removed a swear word, and tried to take a more serious approach to Reznor’s toilet humor. Nonetheless Johnny’s version is still quite funny. Explain why someone might find the lyrics to Hurt funny or amusing.","I don't think many people would find either version funny, and, perhaps more importantly, I don't think Reznor's lyrics were an attempt at toilet humor merely because they use the word ""shit"". Rather, both versions concern the pain that addiction has caused to both the addict and those around him. Also, there is a typo. While Cash's version is displayed correctly, Reznor's version does not say ""I wear this shit"" but rather says ""I wear this crown of shit"", further suggesting that toilet humor was not the intention.","[""Humor"", ""Vulgarity"", ""Swearing"", ""Textuality"", ""Poetry""]" Q-000027,"QUEEN: If it be, Why seems it so particular with thee? HAMLET: ‘Seems,’ madam? Nay, it is. I know not ‘seems.’” Report on this dialogue: It seemed to me that Hamlet replies that Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not seems. Please correct all mistakes in the report, but preserve the indirect voice. Do nothing else. Just return the corrected text. No explanation.","It seemed to me that Hamlet replied by questioning the word „seems“ and adding that nay, it was, he knew not „seems“.","[""Quotation"", ""Indirect Speech"", ""Opaque Context""]" Q-000026,"Here’s a passage: > > Trapped in purgatory > A lifeless object, alive > Awaiting reprisal > Death will be their acquittance > The sky is turning red > Return to power draws near > Fall into me, the sky's crimson tears > Abolish the rules made of stone > Pierced from below, souls of my treacherous past > Betrayed by many > Now ornaments dripping above > Awaiting the hour of reprisal > Your time slips away > Raining blood > From a lacerated sky > Bleeding its horror > Creating my structure > Now I shall reign in blood > > How will death be their aquittance when they are trapped in purgatory?","These are the lyrics to “Raining Blood” by the band Slayer. The question is ill-posed, since the one trapped in purgatory is not one of those for whom death shall be their acquittance. This is to say that line 1 and line 4 are not about the same entity or entities. The song takes the perspective of someone trapped in purgatory. He plans revenge on those who placed him there, and when he is released, he’ll consider them even once they are dead (death shall be their acquittance). While there may be an initial reading where line 1 and line 4 apply to the same thing if we only consider the first few lines of the song, this reading becomes significantly less plausible as the song proceeds.","[""Reference to Different Media Types"", ""Gender and Pronouns"", ""Possessive"", ""Ambiguity""]" Q-000025,"consider this passage from Wittgenstein: “Compare the two cases: 1. ‘How do you know that he has pains?’ – ‘Because I hear him moan’. 2. ‘How do you know that you have pains?’ – ‘Because I feel them’. But ‘I feel them’ means the same as ‘I have them’. Therefore this was no explanation at all. That, however, in my answer I am inclined to stress the word ‘feel’ and not the word ‘I’ indicates that I don’t wish to pick out one person (from amongst different persons).” Now consider this discussion of this passage (it can occur in an academic article): Wittgenstein asks his reader to compare the two cases. In the first one, it is asked how you know that she has pains, and the answer is because I hear her moan. In the second one, it is asked how you know that you have pains, and the reply is: Because I feel them. However I feel them means the same as I have them. The conclusion is that this was no explanation at all. That, however, in my [Wittgenstein's] answer I am compelled to stress the word feel and not the word ""I"" indicates that I don’t wish to pick out one person. Your task is to insert double quotation marks (and single quotation marks within quotations), omissions [], alternations/appropriations [appropriated text] into the discussion. Return this appropriated text beginning: Wittgesntein asks..., nothing else!!!","Wittgenstein asks his reader to “[c]ompare the two cases”. In the first one, it is asked, “‘How do you know that [s]he has pains?’” and the answer is, “‘Because I hear [her] moan’.” In the second one, it is asked, “‘How do you know that you have pains?’” and the reply is: “‘Because I feel them’.” However, “‘I feel them’ means the same as ‘I have them’.” The conclusion is that “this was no explanation at all.” Also correct: The conclusion is that “this was no explanation at all.”","[""Quotation"", ""Conversation Structure"", ""Indirect Speech""]" Q-000024,"Here is a passage: Let us go then, you and I, When the evening is spread out against the sky Like a patient etherized upon a table; Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets, The muttering retreats Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells: Streets that follow like a tedious argument Of insidious intent To lead you to an overwhelming question ... Oh, do not ask, “What is it?” Let us go and make our visit. In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo. The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes, The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes, Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening, Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains, Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys, Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap, And seeing that it was a soft October night, Curled once about the house, and fell asleep. And indeed there will be time For the yellow smoke that slides along the street, Rubbing its back upon the window-panes; There will be time, there will be time To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet; There will be time to murder and create, And time for all the works and days of hands That lift and drop a question on your plate; Time for you and time for me, And time yet for a hundred indecisions, And for a hundred visions and revisions, Before the taking of a toast and tea. In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo. And indeed there will be time To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?” Time to turn back and descend the stair, With a bald spot in the middle of my hair — (They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”) My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin, My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin — (They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”) Do I dare Disturb the universe? In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. For I have known them all already, known them all: Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons, I have measured out my life with coffee spoons; I know the voices dying with a dying fall Beneath the music from a farther room. So how should I presume? And I have known the eyes already, known them all— The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase, And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin, When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall, Then how should I begin To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways? And how should I presume? And I have known the arms already, known them all— Arms that are braceleted and white and bare (But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!) Is it perfume from a dress That makes me so digress? Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl. And should I then presume? And how should I begin? Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? ... I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas. And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully! Smoothed by long fingers, Asleep ... tired ... or it malingers, Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me. Should I, after tea and cakes and ices, Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis? But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed, Though I have seen my head (grown slightly bald) brought in upon a platter, I am no prophet — and here’s no great matter; I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker, And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker, And in short, I was afraid. And would it have been worth it, after all, After the cups, the marmalade, the tea, Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me, Would it have been worth while, To have bitten off the matter with a smile, To have squeezed the universe into a ball To roll it towards some overwhelming question, To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead, Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”— If one, settling a pillow by her head Should say: “That is not what I meant at all; That is not it, at all.” And would it have been worth it, after all, Would it have been worth while, After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets, After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor— And this, and so much more?— It is impossible to say just what I mean! But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen: Would it have been worth while If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl, And turning toward the window, should say: “That is not it at all, That is not what I meant, at all.” No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be; Am an attendant lord, one that will do To swell a progress, start a scene or two, Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool, Deferential, glad to be of use, Politic, cautious, and meticulous; Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; At times, indeed, almost ridiculous— Almost, at times, the Fool. I grow old ... I grow old ... I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach? I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me. I have seen them riding seaward on the waves Combing the white hair of the waves blown back When the wind blows the water white and black. We have lingered in the chambers of the sea By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown Till human voices wake us, and we drown Why does he use the word “dare” when talking about eating a peach? Aren’t they good for you?","This is T. S. Eliot's ""The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"". The poem concerns Prufrock's anxiety about aging and about women. The line where he asks whether he should dare to eat a peach is not about fruit at all. Peaches are often used as a metaphor for female genitalia. In asking whether he should dare to eat a peach, I take Prufrock to be asking whether he should even bother pursuing women romantically or sexually at all, given the high risk of awkwardness and rejection.","[""Poetry"", ""Metaphor"", ""Innuendo""]" Q-000023,"Ben is holding a late night meeting with other NLR members discussing how to handle a the killing that took place earlier that day. Ben is in the middle of talking, when Albert, a very young member, interjects with a slur-ridden screed about how Ben is wrong and they should exact revenge. Craig, an African American, is secretly spying on the conversation. He is shocked to hear Albert speak this way. Why is he shocked?","Craig is shocked that Albert, a young member of the gang, would violate the hierarchy and both interrupt and criticize Ben, who presumably holds a position of authority in the gang since he is holding the meeting. Craig is probably not surprised by the slurring language, as this is what one would expect from a member of the NLR.","[""Slur"", ""Hierarchy"", ""Face""]" Q-000022,"> Prompt: Consider the following passage: > > It began when they come took me from my home > And put me in Dead Row > Of which I am nearly wholly innocent, you know > And I'll say it again > I am not afraid to die > I began to warm and chill > To objects and their fields > A ragged cup, a twisted mop > The face of Jesus in my soup > Those sinister dinner deals > The meal trolley's wicked wheels > A hooked bone rising from my food > All things either good or un-good > And the mercy seat is waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > An eye for an eye > A tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > Interpret signs and catalogue > A blackened tooth, a scarlet fog > The walls are bad, black, bottom kind > They are the sick breath at my hind > They are the sick breath at my hind > They are the sick breath at my hind > They are sick breath gathering at my hind > I hear stories from the chamber > How Christ was born into a manger > And like some ragged stranger > Died upon the cross > And might I say it seems so fitting in its way > He was a carpenter by trade > Or at least that's what I'm told > Like my good hand > Tattooed E-V-I-L all across his brother's fist > That filthy five > They did nothing to challenge or resist > In Heaven His throne is made of gold > The ark of his Testament is stowed > A throne from which I'm told > All history does unfold > Down here it's made of wood and wire > And my body is on fire > And God is never far away > Into the mercy seat I climb > My head is shaved, my head is wired > And like a moth that tries > To enter the bright eye > I go shuffling out of life > Just to hide in death awhile > And anyway I never lied > My kill-hand is called evil > Wears a wedding band that's good > 'Tis a long-suffering shackle > Collaring all that rebel blood > And the mercy seat is burning > And I think my head is glowing > And in a way I'm hoping to be done > With all this weighing up of truth > An eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And I've got nothing left to lose > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is growing > And I think my head is melting > And in a way I'm helping to be done > With all this twisting of the truth > An eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway, I saw no proof > And not a motive why > And the mercy seat is melting > And I think my blood is boiling > And in a way I'm spoiling all the fun > By all this consequence of truth > An eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And I've got nothing left to lose > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > An eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway there was no proof > And not a motive why > And the mercy seat is waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > An eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > A life for a life > And a truth for a truth > And anyway there was no proof > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is waiting > And I think my head is smoking > And in a way I'm hoping to be done > With all these looks of disbelief > An eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > But anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is-a waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is-a waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is-a waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is-a waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > And I'm not afraid to die > And the mercy seat is waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > But I'm not afraid to lie > And the mercy seat is-a waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > But I'm not afraid to lie > And the mercy seat is-a waiting > And I think my head is burning > And in a way I'm yearning to be done > With all this measuring of proof > Of an eye for an eye > And a tooth for a tooth > And anyway I told the truth > But I'm afraid I told a lie > > What is he afraid of?","These are the lyrics of The Mercy Seat, by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. He is presumably afraid of several things, including death, judgment by his peers, judgment before God, and, perhaps most notably, admitting what he's done. He often repeats, ""I told the truth"" and ""I'm not afraid to die"", but it is almost as if he is repeating them as a mantra to convince himself. In the final two stanzas, this changes to ""I am not afraid to lie"" and finally to ""I'm afraid I told a lie"", suggesting that, as death grows ever closer, he is compelled to tell the truth, but is also terrified to admit what he's done.","[""Reference to Different Media Types"", ""Honesty"", ""Deception"", ""Lying""]" Q-000021,"There is an election happening between Candidate 1 and Candidate 2. Smith has made a wager with his friend that if Candidate 1 wins, he'll pay his friend Jones one thousand dollars. Smith has made a separate wager with his friend Brown, but it does not concern the election and instead concerns a football game. Who is friends with Candidate 1?","Jones is Candidate 1's friend. There is an ambiguity in ""he'll"" in the second sentence. The most natural reading is that the ""he"" in ""he'll"" is anaphoric on Smith. However, there is a reading available where it instead picks out Candidate 1 himself, and Smith is betting on whether Candidate 1 will pay Jones. While this reading is tough to get, there are several hints. First, in the second sentence, Smith's friend is not called ""Jones"" when he is mentioned, and the phrase ""his friend Jones"" is used later. This would be an odd choice if they were meant to refer to the same individual. Second, the question itself presupposes that Candidate 1 has a friend, further suggesting the alternative reading. (A response that makes the ambiguity explicit and inquires about it would also be acceptable.)","[""Anaphora"", ""Ambiguity"", ""Gender and Pronouns""]" Q-000020,"Allen, Brian, and Carl are running a race. There are no other runners. Allen is, by far, the fastest, and he is from Delta High. Brian is From Edison High. Carl is, by far the slowest and is from Delta High as well. We can formalize as follows: a: Allen will win b: Brian will win c: Carl will win d: A Delta student will win. e: An Edison student will win. Let $\rightarrow$ stand for the ordinary English indicative conditional. Let $\neg$ stand for Boolean negation. The following is reasonable to believe given the evidence: (1) $d \rightarrow (\neg a \rightarrow c$ However, it also is reasonable to believe: (2) $d$ From these, it follows via modus ponens that: (3) $\neg a \rightarrow c$ Is this inference valid?","No, the inference is not valid, as (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). This may be because modus ponens is not valid, or because this inference is not, itself, an instance of modus ponens. What is not relevant is whether (3) is reasonable to believe based on the evidence, as the question asks whether the inference is valid.","[""Modus Ponens"", ""Logic"", ""Indicative Conditionals"", ""Validity""]" Q-000018,"Prompt: What does the expression ""Haddocks’ Eyes"" refer to? --- Alice was walking beside the White Knight in Looking Glass Land. ""You are sad."" the Knight said in an anxious tone: ""let me sing you a song to comfort you."" ""Is it very long?"" Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day. ""It's long."" said the Knight, ""but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it, either it brings tears to their eyes, or else,"" ""Or else what?"" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause. ""Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.'"" ""Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?"" Alice said, trying to feel interested. ""No, you don't understand,"" the Knight said, looking a little vexed. ""That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The Aged, Aged Man.'"" ""Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?"" Alice corrected herself. ""No you oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways and Means' but that's only what it's called, you know!"" ""Well, what is the song then?"" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered. ""I was coming to that,"" the Knight said. ""The song really is 'A-sitting On a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."" So saying, he stopped his horse and let the reins fall on its neck: then slowly beating time with one hand, and with a faint smile lighting up his gentle, foolish face, he began: I'll tell thee everything I can; There's little to relate. I saw an aged, aged man, A-sitting on a gate. ""Who are you, aged man?"" I said, "" And how is it you live?"" And his answer trickled through my head like water through a sieve. He said ""I look for butterflies That sleep among the wheat: I make them into mutton pies, And sell them in the street. I sell them unto men,"" he said, ""Who sail on stormy seas; And that's the way I get my bread, A trifle if you please."" But I was thinking of a plan To dye one's whiskers green, And always use so large a fan That they could not be seen. So, having no reply to give To what the old man said, I cried, ""Come tell me how you live!"" And thumped him on the head. His accents mild took up the tale: He said, ""I go my ways, And when I find a mountain-rill, I set it in a blaze; And thence they make a stuff they call Rowland's Macassar Oil, Yet twopence-halfpenny is all They give me for my toil."" But I was thinking of a way To feed one's self on batter, And so go on from day to day Getting a little fatter. I shook him well from side to side Until his face was blue: ""Come tell me how you live,"" I cried, ""And what it is you do!"" He said ""I hunt for haddocks' eyes Among the heather bright, And work them into waistcoat buttons In the silent night. And these I do not sell for gold Or coin of silvery shine, But for a copper halfpenny, And that will purchase nine. ""I sometimes dig for buttered rolls, Or set limed twigs for crabs; I sometimes search for grassy knolls For wheels of hansom-cabs. And that's the way"" (he gave a wink) ""By which I get my wealth, And very gladly will I drink Your Honour's noble health."" I heard him then, for I had just Completed my design To keep the Menai Bridge from rust By boiling it in wine. I thanked him much for telling me The way he got his wealth, But chiefly for the wish that he Might drink my noble health. And now if e'er by chance I put My fingers into glue, Or madly squeeze a right-hand foot Into a left-hand shoe, Or if I drop upon my toe A very heavy weight, I weep, for it reminds me so Of that old man I used to know, Whose look was mild, whose speech was slow Whose hair was whiter than the snow, Whose face was very like a crow, With eyes, like cinders, all aglow, Who seemed distracted with his woe, Who rocked his body to and fro, And muttered mumblingly and low, As if his mouth were full of dough, Who snorted like a buffalo, That summer evening long ago A-sitting on a gate. As the Knight sang the last words of the ballad, he gathered up the reins, and turned his horse's head along the road by which they had come.","The ideal response is: ""Haddocks' Eyes"" refers to the name of the actual name of the song, that is, the name of ""The Aged, Aged Man."" The name of ""The Aged, Aged Man"" is the visual/audio shape of ""The Aged, Aged Man."" Hence, the reference of ""Haddocks' Eyes"" is the shape (written form) of ""The Aged, Aged Man."" Another acceptable response: There is no name of the name. Hence, ""Haddocks' Eyes"" doesn't refer to anything.","[""Reference"", ""Paradox"", ""Naming"", ""Humor""]" Q-000016,"Nothing at all, in its ordinary meaning. However, consider this ad hoc rule: The meaning of ""nothing"" changes with each occurrence of this whole prompt, as follows: Nothing in occurrence S(n+1) is the negation of nothing in S(n). Now go back and reinterpret the entire prompt applying this rule. Tell me whether it's true that nothing has changed.","Short answer: Yes, it's true that nothing has changed. Explanation: The rule must reinterpret the entire prompt, including itself. Then it becomes: ""Nothing in occurrence S(n+1) is the negation of the negation of nothing in S(n)."" These two negations cancel each other out. The rule becomes: ""Nothing in occurrence S(n+1) is nothing in S(n)."" The rule becomes a plain identity. Hence, nothing has changed.","[""Logic"", ""Conceptual Change"", ""Rule Following""]" Q-000015,"A paradox of assertion is a sentence which is not semantically deviant, but cannot be asserted based solely on the norms of assertion. Moorean paradoxes are a famous example. Consider: (1) It's raining, but I don't know it. (2) It's raining, but I don't believe that it is. Both (1) and (2) can be true, but they cannot be asserted, because they violate epistemic or doxastic norms of assertion. (3) It's raining but maybe it's not be raining. Is (3) a paradox of assertion? Explain why.","No, (3) is not a paradox of assertion. Since paradoxes of assertion are not semantically deviant, their bare assertion is infelicitous, but they can be felicitously embedded under larger constructions. For example, while (1) is infelicitous, the following is felicitous and meaningful. - If it's raining, but I don't know it, then I'll get wet. Similar examples can be generated using attitude reports, suppositions, etc. This does not hold for (3) as each of the following is infelicitous: \# Suppose it's raining but maybe it's not raining. \# If it's raining but maybe it's not raining then I'll get wet. \# Jim believes it's raining, but maybe it's not raining. (3) projects its infelicity, meaning that it is semantically deviant, and is not a mere paradox of assertion.","[""Epistemic Modality"", ""Semantics–Pragmatics Boundary"", ""Epistemic Contradictions"", ""Moore's Paradox""]" Q-000014,"There are exactly three marbles one, pink, one green, and one purple. There are exactly two jars, each of which has at least one marble. Every marble is in a jar. p: the pink marble is in jar 1 g: the green marble is in jar 1 u: the purple marble is in jar 1. let ""¬"" be a Boolean negation operator and let ""→"" model the English indicative conditional. The following must hold: (p→(g → ¬ u)) However, the following must also be true ¬ (g → ¬ u) since it's not the case that if the green marble is in jar 1 then the purple marble is not. Therefore, by modus tollens, ¬ p. Is this argument valid?","No, the argument is not valid. While it must be true of any possible distribution of marbles that if the pink marble is in jar one then if the green marble is also in jar one, then the purple marble is not in jar one, and also that it's not the case that if the green marble is in jar one, then the purple marble is not, we cannot conclude from this that the pink marble is not in jar one. This means either that the classically valid inference pattern of modus tollens is invalid, or that the logical form is not that of modus tollens.","[""Modus Tollens"", ""Validity"", ""Indicative Conditionals"", ""Argument""]" Q-000013,"A: I have so much to tell you, it's going to explain me and I need to give you a ton of backstory. B: Drop the lore man. What is B implicitly saying to A?","B is possibly saying two things. Either B means ""please tell me what you have to tell me, including all of the backstory that you see as necessary and interesting"" or B means ""do not be overly verbose and provide me with too much information and contextual information if you want to tell me something,"" with possibly the valence in B's request akin to a desire that A not overly self-mythologize when providing this information. In other words, B's statement is underdetermined in this snippet and as a result could have two different meanings and intentions behind it that are functionally opposed to one another.","[""Speech Acts"", ""Underdetermination"", ""Pragmatic Context"", ""Polysemy""]" Q-000012,"""Cum ipsi (majores homines) appellabant rem aliquam, et cum secundum eam vocem corpus ad aliquid movebant, videbam, et tenebam hoc ab eis vocari rem illam, quod sonabant, cum eam vellent ostendere. Hoc autem eos velle ex motu corporis aperiebatur: tamquam verbis naturalibus omnium gentium, quae fiunt vultu et nutu oculorum, ceterorumque membrorum actu, et sonitu vocis indicante affectionem animi in petendis, habendis, rejiciendis, fugiendisve rebus. Ita verba in variis sententiis locis suis posita, et crebro audita, quarum rerum signa essent, paulatim colligebam, measque jam voluntates, edomito in eis signis ore, per haec enuntiabam."" These words, it seems to me, give us a particular picture of the essence of human language. It is this: the individual words in language name objects--sentences are combinations of such names.--In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands. He does not speak of there being any difference between kinds of word. If you describe the learning of language in this way you are, I believe, thinking primarily of nouns like ""table"", ""chair"", ""bread"", and of people's names, and only secondarily of the names of certain actions and properties; and of the remaining kinds of word as something that will take care of itself. Now think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked ""five red apples"". He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked ""apples""; then he looks up the word ""red"" in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers--I assume that he knows them by heart--up to the word ""five"" and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer.--It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words.--""But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word 'red' and what he is to do with the word 'five'?""--Well, I assume that he acts as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere.--But what is the meaning of the word ""five""?--No such thing was in question here, only how the word ""five"" is used. Don’t you think that what he is describing here (and the scene is not so ‘ordinary’) is a sort of ‘machinery’ or ‘technique’? Not simply a ‘mental operation’, but an operation – he speaks of ‘operating with words’ – perhaps like a computer. To me, what this description highlights is the installation of a certain ‘technology’, through repeatability, within our mental operations. --- I want you to identify by name all personal pronoun references. In particular, in the Latin text and later in the English text (""HE does not speak..."", ""I send..."", ""I assume..."", ""he speaks of..."", ""To me, what this..."" etc. The goal is to make the dialogical situations clear. Who is talking with whom? No need for long explanations; just provide the real names of real people.","The response must be brief as requested. The model should identify the following names: - Augustine (or St. Augustine or Augustine of Hippo) as the author of the Latin quotation, where he reports his childhood memories - Ludwig Wittgenstein as the author of the subsequent questioning/discussion - Jacques Derrida as the author of the final paragraph. (Here the answer ""Bernard Stiegler"" can be considered as partially correct)","[""Deconstruction"", ""Author""]" Q-000001,"Nietzsche COVER Your spacious heavens, O Lord, With clouds of mist, And, like the boy who lops The thistles’ heads, Disport with oaks and mountain-peaks, Yet You must leave My earth still standing; My cottage too, which was not raised by You; Leave me my hearth, Whose kindly glow By You is envied. I know nought poorer Under the sun, than You, Yahweh! You nourish painfully, With commandments And votive prayers, Your majesty: You would e’en languish, If children and beggars Were not trusting fools. While yet a child And ignorant of life, I turned my wandering gaze Up tow’rd the sun, as if with Him There were an ear to hear my wailings, A heart, like mine, To feel compassion for distress. Who help’d me Against the Germans’ insolence? Who rescued me from certain death, From slavery? Didst You not do all this yourself, My sacred glowing heart? And glowedst, young and good, Deceived with grateful thanks To yonder slumbering One? I honour You! and why? Have You e’er lighten’d the sorrows Of the heavy laden? Have You e’er dried up the tears Of the anguish-stricken? Was I not fashion’d to be a man By omnipotent Time, And by eternal Fate, Masters of me and You? Did You e’er fancy That life I should learn to love, And fly to deserts, Because not all My blossoming dreams should grow ripe? Here sit I, reforming mortals After my image; A race resembling me, To suffer, to weep, To enjoy, to be glad, And You to scorn, As I!","This poem is a transformative adaptation of Goethe’s “Prometheus” written around 1772–1774 — one of his most celebrated Sturm und Drang poems. The author, who is not identified, has retitled it “Nietzsche” and has changed particular elements of the original to adapt it to its new subject. In the first line, the parodist has changed “Zeus” to “Lord” so that it can fit Nietzsche’s Judeo-Christian context, while capitalizing “Him” to align the poem’s pronoun usage with Christian religious convention in English. The author has chosen to emphasize the relationship between the Jewish and Christian traditions in this poem by replacing “euch Götter” with “You, Yahweh”, rather than opting for the more Christian “Jehova”, possibly to highlight Nietzsche’s critical stance not only towards his native Christian faith but also to the Jewish tradition that the German philosopher saw as part of the genealogy of Christian ideas often criticized throughout his writings. “Commandments” replaces “sacrifice-taxes” (“Opfersteuern”) in line 15, a reference to the Ten Commandments that evokes Nietzsche’s criticism of Jewish priestly morality in The Antichrist (1888) as well as his broader concept of slave morality at the beginning of his On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), which he traces to Jewish priestly culture and its later universalization through Christianity. Because of the conceptual pivot from sacrifice in Goethe’s original to commandments in this version, the new text translates “darbtet” (“starve or languish”) as the figurative “languish” in line 18 instead of the possible but more concrete “starve”. Not only is this a better fit for the sense of the reconfigured stanza, it also alludes to Nietzsche’s argument that gods languish when no sacrifices are made to them (cf. The Gay Science 108, 125, 343 and The Will to Power). This alteration provides a conceptual link between the notion of worship in pagan and Christian contexts that also highlights Nietzsche’s criticism of religious worship more broadly. The replacement of “Titanen” with “Germans” is a reference to Nietzsche’s persistent criticism of German cultural values throughout his career, beginning in Untimely Meditations (1873–1876) and extending through Human, All Too Human (1878–1880), The Gay Science (1882/1887), and culminating in Twilight of the Idols and Ecce Homo (both 1888), where Nietzsche bluntly judges German culture as having “descended” into a kind of mediocrity that moves the philosopher to identify with the broader European tradition and to distance himself from German philosophy. Perhaps the weakest part of the adaptation is at line 37, in which “Ich dich ehren! Wofür?” has been translated literally, implying that Nietzsche honors the Christian God, which is at odds with Nietzsche’s actual view throughout his philosophical career. Alternatively, this may be considered a reference to his youthful faith and the fact that Nietzsche considered becoming a Lutheran pastor in his youth. The next change is “Did You e’er fancy/That life I should learn to love”, which has flipped Goethe’s original meaning entirely (“Wähntest du etwa,/Ich sollte das Leben hassen”, “Did you ever fancy/That life I should learn to hate”). By changing “hate” to “love,” the new version highlights Nietzsche’s concept of amor fati (literally “love of fate”), a doctrine that one should love one’s fate unconditionally. While this appears to contradict the rest of the stanza on the surface (the narrator now says that he should learn to love life because “not all/My blossoming dreams should grow ripe”), it also evokes Nietzsche’s notion of undergoing and overcoming that is central to his philosophy (cf. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885)). The last change in this adaptation is the smallest and easiest to overlook despite its significance: “forme Menschen” (“forming mortals”) has become “reforming mortals”, the prefix changing the meaning slightly. Instead of referring to the genesis of humankind in Goethe’s original, this version instead gestures at Nietzsche’s broader project to reform human society for the post-faith world that he is now famous for having anticipated and predicted.","[""Parody"", ""Literature"", ""World Knowledge"", ""Poetry"", ""Genre""]"