- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
Sorry, I can't help but notice a contradiction in your explanation. On the one hand, you argue that "It's true" doesn't work as a response to "To fall asleep is hard for him" due to a lack of coherence. On the other hand, you're okay with "You love money and power more than you love me"."It's true..." For some reason, in the latter case you allow the speaker "to decide to focus on the fact,...or the truth condition, rather than the utterance as an object." Why are you not okay with the former, then? Suppose the responding person decided to focus on the truth condition. Why is this inappropriate?
And you don't see any problems with that because the reference 'target' (an utterance as such or its content) is up to the speaker, right? Then again, why do you see problems with the 'sleep' example? Why can't we just leave it up to the speaker what to refer to, given that such an approach works well for the 'Robertson' and the 'you love money more than me' examples?
How does this differ from my 'teacher-student' context?
Robertson is referring to the propositional content only, not to any previous utterance.
And you don't see any problems with that because the reference 'target' (an utterance as such or its content) is up to the speaker, right? Then again, why do you see problems with the 'sleep' example? Why can't we just leave it up to the speaker what to refer to, given that such an approach works well for the 'Robertson' and the 'you love money more than me' examples?
No, they don't. That's the whole point of the example.
How does this differ from my 'teacher-student' context?
Last edited: