Re: Order & meaning in a proposition

"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:o1i570dni7ed6aa7me49npn6h31278lqie_at_4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:06:25 -0700, "Tom Hester" <$$tom_at_metadata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:dk8570p9lapb8kh7uar9psihtat6ojgh07_at_4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:02:30 -0500, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
> >> <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Pat is the host who seated the President and the Secretary of the
> >Interior
> >Yes, that is called conversational implicature; and it is part of the
> >meaning of the sentence. That is, a hearer may conventionally conclude
that
> >the guests were seated in that order.
>
> This "hearer" didn't. I've learned not to make assumptions on the
> basis of statements which are open to interpretation.
What I said was not an assumption but a fact. Read a little pragmatics if you don't believe me.
> >Furthermore, we can make the order
> >explicit by saying: "Pat is the host who seated the President and then
the
> >Secretary of the Interior" and I believe that Dawn's point still holds.
> >That is, the resulting relational model would not reflect the order; even
> >though it is now explicit.
> I believe you are saying that if the sequence of events isn't part of
> the relationships between the tables, then it's not part of the model.
I didn't say that at all. Received on Tue Apr 06 2004 - 17:46:19 CEST