The Lemon Fool

Far be it from me to think of correcting an Oxford-educated classicist, but this is painful.

If [subject] were a [thing], which I can tell you from personal experience it is, ...

To my impoverished understanding (having never formally encountered the grammar of any language save in the context of O-level German) that is simply wrong. The comparison in the first clause implies negation of the condition, but that negation is immediately contradicted by the subordinate clause that follows.

Aaargh!

Is that a grammatical issue, or is it a logical mobius loop, of the "all Cretans are liars" kind? I'm not sure.

BJ

UncleEbenezer wrote:Far be it from me to think of correcting an Oxford-educated classicist, but this is painful.

If [subject] were a [thing], which I can tell you from personal experience it is, ...

To my impoverished understanding (having never formally encountered the grammar of any language save in the context of O-level German) that is simply wrong. The comparison in the first clause implies negation of the condition, but that negation is immediately contradicted by the subordinate clause that follows.

Aaargh!

If hangovers were a thing, which I can tell you from personal experience...

Doesn't seem wrong to me (or am I missing the point?).

Some people haven't experienced them, perhaps the medical profession don't acknowledge their existence, and therefore there is some doubt as to their existence. The first clause introduces the possibility they exist, or not, whilst the second personalises it to say I have experienced it. I don't know what the next part of the sentence is/was so can't comment as to its grammatical correctness, or not.

dealtn wrote:If hangovers were a thing, which I can tell you from personal experience...

Doesn't seem wrong to me (or am I missing the point?).

Some people haven't experienced them, perhaps the medical profession don't acknowledge their existence, and therefore there is some doubt as to their existence. The first clause introduces the possibility they exist, or not, whilst the second personalises it to say I have experienced it. I don't know what the next part of the sentence is/was so can't comment as to its grammatical correctness, or not.

Exactly. I had been intending to make a similar point about dreaming in colour - some people apparently insist that all dreams are in black and white, while the rest of us experience them in glorious technicolour. While there's no obvious way of convincing the first group that its black-and-white experience is untypical, it seems only reasonable for the second group to assert its multicoloured experience, even if it has to be acknowledged that there's no real prospect of convincing the other.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:

dealtn wrote:If hangovers were a thing, which I can tell you from personal experience...

Doesn't seem wrong to me (or am I missing the point?).

Some people haven't experienced them, perhaps the medical profession don't acknowledge their existence, and therefore there is some doubt as to their existence. The first clause introduces the possibility they exist, or not, whilst the second personalises it to say I have experienced it. I don't know what the next part of the sentence is/was so can't comment as to its grammatical correctness, or not.

Exactly. I had been intending to make a similar point about dreaming in colour - some people apparently insist that all dreams are in black and white, while the rest of us experience them in glorious technicolour. While there's no obvious way of convincing the first group that its black-and-white experience is untypical, it seems only reasonable for the second group to assert its multicoloured experience, even if it has to be acknowledged that there's no real prospect of convincing the other.

BJ

Yes I get the dreams in colour, but my sister takes things to a new level, which I find hard to er, visualize, but she insists she can experience.

If you say a word to her she "sees" that word in her head, and specific words have a colour, and that colour will always be the same. Even weirder, if the word you say is itself a colour, such as "yellow" she sees that word in her head but it won't be in the colour yellow!

Synaesthesia ?

AleisterCrowley wrote:Synaesthesia ?

Yes, but someone who has it trying to "convince" someone that doesn't have it, and can't conceive of its very existence, can be a frustrating challenge I guess.

AleisterCrowley wrote:Synaesthesia ?

Bless you. Make sure you bin that tissue, now.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:Is that a grammatical issue, or is it a logical mobius loop, of the "all Cretans are liars" kind? I'm not sure.

BJ

"all Cretans are liars" - this actually resolves to a satisfactory state
The Cretan you meet is a liar, who knows of one or more Cretans who tell the truth

dealtn wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:Far be it from me to think of correcting an Oxford-educated classicist, but this is painful.

If [subject] were a [thing], which I can tell you from personal experience it is, ...

To my impoverished understanding (having never formally encountered the grammar of any language save in the context of O-level German) that is simply wrong. The comparison in the first clause implies negation of the condition, but that negation is immediately contradicted by the subordinate clause that follows.

Aaargh!

If hangovers were a thing, which I can tell you from personal experience...

Doesn't seem wrong to me (or am I missing the point?).

Yes.

"If hangovers were a thing" is a figure of speech. The grammatical construct I condensed (without recollecting his exact words) was materially different.

Yours is at least debatable; Stuttley's was painful to hear.

AleisterCrowley wrote:

bungeejumper wrote:Is that a grammatical issue, or is it a logical mobius loop, of the "all Cretans are liars" kind? I'm not sure.

BJ

"all Cretans are liars" - this actually resolves to a satisfactory state
The Cretan you meet is a liar, who knows of one or more Cretans who tell the truth

The whole construction is flawed, as it excludes the possibility of a Cretan who sometimes but not always lies.

All politicians are liars. Doesn't mean everything they say is a lie.

Russell, who in the early 1900s was utterly perplexed by this self-referential paradox, stated it as follows: Epimenides the Cretan said that all Cretans were liars, and all other statements made by Cretans were certainly lies. Was this a lie?

I had that [flipping] Bertrand Russell in the back of my cab. I said, “’Ere, Bertie, you’ve written the history of the [flipping] Western world, what’s the [flipping] answer?”
He looked round, didn’t [flipping] know. And I said, “Look, Bertie, Bertie, Bertie..... GET OUT THE CAB.”
He said: “What is the meaning of getting out the cab?”
I said, “There’s no [flipping] meaning, it just means ‘get out the cab’.”
And he went into some philosophical argument about whether getting out the cab was the same as getting in the cab. All that cr*p, I thought, “[Flip] it.”

AleisterCrowley wrote: He said: “What is the meaning of getting out the cab?”
I said, “There’s no [flipping] meaning, it just means ‘get out the cab’.”
And he went into some philosophical argument about whether getting out the cab was the same as getting in the cab. All that cr*p, I thought, “[Flip] it.”

No, no, guv, you've got it all wrong. That was Schrodinger's cab.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:

AleisterCrowley wrote: He said: “What is the meaning of getting out the cab?”
I said, “There’s no [flipping] meaning, it just means ‘get out the cab’.”
And he went into some philosophical argument about whether getting out the cab was the same as getting in the cab. All that cr*p, I thought, “[Flip] it.”

No, no, guv, you've got it all wrong. That was Schrodinger's cab.

BJ

I think you must have read my "Schrödinger's immigrant" joke the other day, didn't you!

But getting back on topic (pedantry), the point of schrödinger's anything is that it can exist in two states (e.g. dead and alive), but simultaneously exists in both until someone pitches up and has a gander at it. Yes?

Puts me in mind of what my dear old departed Dad used to say. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, I clearly haven't explained it properly". I'm pretty sure he nicked that from someone before him though.

"Get out the cab " must mean that the cab is garaged and is needed for business and does not mean "get out of the cab" . But then , who says what they mean or mean what they say these days .

marronier wrote:"Get out the cab " must mean that the cab is garaged and is needed for business and does not mean "get out of the cab" .

Just as "Fire up the Quattro!" doesn't sound so good if the Quattro happens to be the name of your hotel?

BJ