When one ascribes truth to a picture one does not really want...

[Alexey86]

When one ascribes truth to a picture one does not really want to ascribe a property which belongs to this picture altogether
independently of other things, but one always has something quite different in mind and one wants to say that that picture
corresponds in some way to this thing.
(G. Frege, The Thought: A Logical Inquiry)

The first one is indefinite and equal to someone. The rest one's are definite (anaphorically) and can be replaced by (s)he or this person. If I replaced the first one with a person/a man and continued repeating this indefinite NP, it would be a new/some other person every time, which wouldn't make sense. So I'd have to continue with this person/this man/he. But one can be used repeatedly maintaining anaphoric reference.

Do someone, somebody and something share the same feature?

 

[jutfrank]

Before we start, I think we need to make it clear to everyone that this is a translation from the original German. The German language commonly uses the impersonal pronoun man, which is readily translated into English by one. Could you confirm that all those ones did indeed start out life as mans?

 

[Alexey86]

Before we start, I think we need to make it clear to everyone that this is a translation from the original German. The German language commonly uses the impersonal pronoun man, which is readily translated into English by one. Could you confirm that all those ones did indeed start out life as mans?

Here's the original text: Wenn man Wahrheit von einem Bilde aussagt, will man eigentlich keine Eigenschaft aussagen, welche diesem Bilde ganz losgelöst von anderen Dingen zukäme, sondern man hat dabei immer noch eine ganz andere Sache im Auge, und man will sagen, daß jenes Bild mit dieser Sache irgendwie übereinstimme.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't see any difference in definiteness between those mans, so I disagree with the claims made in your question.

This is one case where there is significant difference between German and English, and as I said in the other thread, I don't want to discuss German language use. Moreover, it wouldn't be appropriate on this forum. I'm happy to talk about anything that was originally conceived in English.

 

[Alexey86]

I don't see any difference in definiteness between those mans, so I disagree with the claims made in your question.

This is one case where there is significant difference between German and English, and as I said in the other thread, I don't want to discuss German language use. Moreover, it wouldn't be appropriate on this forum. I'm happy to talk about anything that was originally conceived in English.

Can we forget about the German original and focus on the English text? My question is about the use of English pronouns only.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't think I can do that. The approach I always take when analysing article use is to ask myself "What was going through the speaker's mind when he said that?" The trouble is I can't do this here because the person who wrote the words you're asking to analyse, the translator, had no better idea of precisely what was going through Frege's mind than we do. What you're suggesting we do is ultimately an exercise in translation rather than analysis of language use.

In any case, none of those mans or ones can be understood as definite, as far as I can see. They're all indefinite, it seems. And I'm not even sure if any of them can be said to be anaphoric. In fact, I don't think they can.

Having said all that, I do kind of get what you're wondering, I think. If we label each of the ones as O1, O2, O3, O4, then:

O1) could be translated as either somebody or a person.
O2) could be translated as he or they or that person. (Plus, I think all of these would be deictic, not anaphoric.)
O3, O4) are both very odd. This reads like a bad translation. I can barely make any sense out of these two. From the context, we know that the subject of the verbs has and wants is the same subject as that of the preceding verb want, of which O2 is the subject. Therefore, I can only deduce that O2, O3, O4 have the same reference.

So if there's a difference between O1 and O2,3,4, then it's that the latter three are deictic, unlike the former. I don't want to commit to this view, though, so please don't hold me to it.

This is tortuous, Alexey. I can't see how this is going to help you very much. It isn't good exemplary use.

 

[Alexey86]

This is tortuous, Alexey. I can't see how this is going to help you very much. It isn't good exemplary use.

Could we, then, discuss this example: This realization led students to a question that struck them as even more urgent: How, then, would one determine which view was right? Hunger for this kind of learning must come from the student. If one wants an answer, one must find it oneself. A teacher can only prepare the way.
(Huffington Post)

 

[jutfrank]

Absolutely, yes.

 

[Alexey86]

OK. Would you, please, compare the following examples and tell me which of them make sense to you:

a) How, then, would one determine which view was right? Hunger for this kind of learning must come from the student. If one wants an answer, (s)he/that student must find it oneself. A teacher can only prepare the way.

b) How, then, would someone determine which view was right? Hunger for this kind of learning must come from the student. If someone wants an answer, (s)he/that student must find it oneself. A teacher can only prepare the way.

c) How, then, would one determine which view was right? Hunger for this kind of learning must come from the student. If one wants an answer, someone must find it oneself. A teacher can only prepare the way.

d) How, then, would someone determine which view was right? Hunger for this kind of learning must come from the student. If someone wants an answer, someone must find it oneself. A teacher can only prepare the way.

e) How, then, would someone determine which view was right? Hunger for this kind of learning must come from the student. If someone wants an answer, one must find it oneself. A teacher can only prepare the way.

 

[jutfrank]

a) and b) yes.

c) and d) no, because someone can't mean 'that student'.

e) Yes, because someone and one are essentially the same in that they're both generic and indefinite.

I think I don't need to, but I'll stress just in case that we're talking here purely about meaning. My answers have little bearing on actual use. None of those sentences are natural. I fully understand that this is merely a way for you to think about basic principles of meaning more than natural language use. However, it does complicate things because real meaning comes from real natural language, from the actual words that people use. For example, in d), using two someones like that could well make the listener think that each 'someone' refers to a different person, rather than the same person, which is obviously what you mean. Just remember that I only know what you mean because of the context of our discussion.

I strongly suggest that we stick to authentic language use from native speakers only wherever possible, please.

 

[Alexey86]

I fully understand that this is merely a way for you to think about basic principles of meaning more than natural language use.

Yes, that's exactly what I am doing - exploring the basic semantic properties of one and someone. And the best and way to do this is to run the Substitution Test (https://trans4mind.com/personal_development/writing/grammar/parts_of_speech/substitution_test.htm).

I strongly suggest that we stick to authentic language use from native speakers only wherever possible, please.

Please, don't reject my substitution approach, at least this time. After all, isn't this subforum called General Language Discussion?

a) and b) yes.

c) and d) no, because someone can't mean 'that student'. For example, in d), using two someones like that could well make the listener think that each 'someone' refers to a different person, rather than the same person, which is obviously what you mean.

That's exactly what I thought.

e) Yes, because someone and one are essentially the same in that they're both generic and indefinite.

If both pronouns were essentially the same, we could replace the last one in the original with someone. But we can't. I think this is because one can be anaphorically definite (it's interchangeable with (s)he/that person in (a)), while someone can't. Which explains why (c-d) don't work, while (e) does. So, their semantic properties are different.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, that's exactly what I am doing - exploring the basic semantic properties of one and someone. And the best and way to do this is to run the Substitution Test (https://trans4mind.com/personal_development/writing/grammar/parts_of_speech/substitution_test.htm).

Okay, understood.

Please, don't reject my substitution approach, at least this time. After all, isn't this subforum called General Language Discussion?

Okay, as long as we're aware of the shortfalls of such an approach, that's fine.

That's exactly what I thought.

Good.

If both pronouns were essentially the same, we could replace the last one in the original with someone. But we can't. I think this is because one can be anaphorically definite (it's interchangeable with (s)he/that person in (a)), while someone can't. Which explains why (c-d) don't work, while (e) does. So, their semantic properties are different.

Yes, that's right. The word some has an indefinite sense. Let me correct what I said before, then: someone and one can have the same kind of reference (indefinite), but one can be used anaphorically too (definite), where someone cannot. I think that sounds right.

Just to add an extra level of complication, there also exists for some semanticists the notion of specific indefiniteness, which is used to describe those noun phrases that identify an entity more precisely than other indefinites. One view that uses this notion concerns the following pair of sentences:

(a) Jane is married to a pilot.
(b) Jane wants to marry a pilot.

The view is that in (a) the NP a pilot has reference to a particular person, it's just that his identity is not being disclosed, whereas in (b) there is no particular person in mind. Therefore, the NP in (a) is specific and in (b) it isn't. I'm not sure what I think about this view, but I'm wondering if we can productively apply this notion of specific indefiniteness to our example paragraph. What do you think?

 

[Alexey86]

there also exists for some semanticists the notion of specific indefiniteness

I know that notion and find it quite helpful when it comes to article/pronoun use. I also use the terms substantial (real, existing) vs non-substantial. Specificity and substantiality are not synonymous:

Jane wants to marry a pilot. He/The pilot must be in the rank of captain at least.

He/The pilot is more specific because of its anaphoric reference. But nevertheless, both a pilot and he/the pilot are non-substantial.

What do you think?

That's an excellent example helping to explore the nature of one and someone further:

c) Do you know any pilot? Yeah, I know one (specific, substantial).
d) One should be careful on the road (non-specific, non-substantial).

Someone, although non-specific and non-substantial, would sound odd in (d), while everyone and anyone wouldn't. It seems a non-specific/non-substantial one in a general statement is closer to anyone than to someone.

What do you think?

Compare also the following examples with specific/substantial ones:

e) Do you know anyone who can help me? Yeah, I know one.
f) Do you know someone who can help me? Yeah, I know one.

Which of these is preferable to you?

 

[jutfrank]

It seems a non-specific/non-substantial one in a general statement is closer to anyone than to someone.

What do you think?

Yes. The 'some' in the word someone has a sense of specificity there whereas 'any' in anyone doesn't.

Compare also the following examples with specific/substantial ones:

e) Do you know anyone who can help me? Yeah, I know one.
f) Do you know someone who can help me? Yeah, I know one.

Which of these is preferable to you?

They're both completely unacceptable. The word one in the answer cannot work anaphorically to anyone/someone, which is what the reader's mind thinks it's doing. The best answers you can give to both of those questions are someone, another indefinite noun phrase with some, or a noun phrase with an indefinite article.

Yeah, I know someone.
Yeah, I know some bloke.
Yeah, I know a guy.

That's interesting, right? All of these seem to be good examples of specific indefiniteness, because in all three cases the speaker clearly has a particular (substantial) person in mind.

 

[Alexey86]

They're both completely unacceptable. The word one in the answer cannot work anaphorically to anyone/someone, which is what the reader's mind thinks it's doing.

Wow! I didn't expect that. Really. My non-native ear was completely OK with one.

The best answers you can give to both of those questions are someone, another indefinite noun phrase with some, or a noun phrase with an indefinite article.

Yeah, I know someone.
Yeah, I know some bloke.
Yeah, I know a guy.

That's interesting, right? Both of these seem to be good examples of specific indefiniteness, because in both cases the speaker clearly has a particular (substantial) person in mind.

It seems we're dealing with quite a strict order of pronoun/noun choices based on the principle of increasing specificity: anyone -> someone -> some bloke/a guy -> one.

a) Do you know anyone who can help me? Yeah, I know someone.
b) Do you know someone who can help me? Yeah, I know a guy.
c) Do you know a/any guy who can help me? Yeah, I know one.

What if each example is a single sentence with strictly anaphoric reference:

a-1) If you know anyone who can help me, I'd like to see (?)
b-1) If you know someone who can help me, I'd like to see (?)
c-1) If you know a/any guy who can help me, I'd like to see (?)

Can I use the same variants as I did in (a-c)? I can't rely on my non-native ear now.

 

[jutfrank]

But what if I merge each example into one sentence with strictly anaphoric reference:

a-1) If you know anyone who can help me, I'd like to see (?)
b-1) If you know someone who can help me, I'd like to see (?)
c-1) If you know a/any guy who can help me, I'd like to see (?)

Can I use the same variants as I did in (a-c)? I can't rely on my non-native ear now.

Technically, yes, but none of those answers are very likely.

Here are some much more likely choices:

a) The best choice is definitely the anaphoric them. Also possible, along with your answers, is a deictic expression, such as that person.
b) As above.
c) As above, but also possible here is him since the antecedent seems to be referring gender-specifically to a male, unlike the gender non-specific anyone/someone in a and b. (Also note that whereas a guy is fine in the first clause, any guy is not very natural in this context.)


Edit: On further reflection, I can now see that your suggestion of using a non-anaphoric someone in a) is perfectly likely in the right context. A bit more likely than someone in b), I'd say (and why this may be is intriguing and worth exploring, I think).

 

[Tarheel]

"When one ascribes truth to a picture one does not really want to ascribe a property which belongs to this picture altogether
independently of other things, but one always has something quite different in mind and one wants to say that that picture
corresponds in some way to this thing.
(G. Frege, The Thought: A Logical Inquiry)"

The first one is indefinite and equal to someone. The other ones are definite (anaphorically) and can be replaced by (s)he or this person. If I replaced the first one with a person/a man and continued repeating this indefinite NP, it would be a new/some other person every time, which wouldn't make sense. So I'd have to continue with this person/this man/he. But one can be used repeatedly maintaining anaphoric reference.

Do someone, somebody and something share the same feature?

I don't understand why you italicized the quotation instead of putting it within quote marks.

 

[Alexey86]

I don't understand why you italicized the quotation instead of putting it within quote marks.

I thought I could either italicize quotations or use quote marks. Was I wrong?

Technically, yes, but none of those answers are very likely.

Could that be because two separate speakers make anaphoric reference weaker/partial (provided that the first object is unspecified)?

a) Do you know anyone who can help me? Yeah, I know someone.
a-1) If you know anyone who can help me, I'd like to see them.

It seems the semantic bond between anyone and the relative clause in (a) isn't very strong, and the weak anaphoric someone is referring to the relative clause only (or mainly?). While the blue part in (a-1) is like an undividable monolith forcing the speaker to use the strong anaphoric them.

What do you think?

 

[jutfrank]

Could that be because two separate speakers make anaphoric reference weaker/partial (provided that the first object is unspecified)?

a) Do you know anyone who can help me? Yeah, I know someone.
a-1) If you know anyone who can help me, I'd like to see them.

I wouldn't say that there being two speakers makes anaphoric reference 'weaker'. I'd say that in a), anaphoric reference isn't possible. You can't use them, for example. I don't think that Speaker 2's someone can be correctly considered as anaphoric of Speaker 1's anyone since Speaker 1's anyone is completely non-specific.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the reference in a-1) but I'm tempted to say that the anaphoric reference is only possible because the speaker's anyone is specific in some sense. It's like saying: If you have a specific person in mind, I'd like to see that person. This seems to be a great example of specific indefiniteness.

It seems the semantic bond between anyone and the relative clause in (a) isn't very strong, and the weak anaphoric someone is referring to the relative clause only (or mainly?).

I'm not completely sure I follow your thinking. someone obviously means only 'someone who can help you'. The relative clause gives definition to the pronoun.

While the blue part in (a-1) is like an undividable monolith forcing the speaker to use the strong anaphoric them.

I don't see the difference like that. In both sentences, the NP anyone who can help is equally 'undividable' in that the defining relative clause restricts (or 'defines') the head in precisely the same way. The difference, I think, lies in the degree of specificity in the speaker's mind. I'm not sure. I'll have to think about this more.

 

[Alexey86]

I wouldn't say that there being two speakers makes anaphoric reference 'weaker'. I'd say that in a), anaphoric reference isn't possible. You can't use them, for example.

Nor would someone make much sense in the reply without being semantically related to anyone who can help me. So, it has to be anaphoric to some degree at least, doesn't it?

I don't see the difference like that. In both sentences, the NP anyone who can help is equally 'undividable' in that the defining relative clause restricts (or 'defines') the head in precisely the same way.

Consider the following:

Do you know anyone who can help me? Yeah, I know someone who can help you.
If you know anyone who can help me, I'd like to see them who can help me.

Clumsiness aside, which of these is preferable/possible to you? If the former, then the anyone who can help me parts are not equally monolithic, i.e. it's easier for someone to take the relative clause from anyone splitting thus the monolith up.