Semantics: Entailment

[@noufalajmi3114]

Great job 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 you explained it perfectly

[@bennybenz7722]

For 6a, why does it feel so different when you say “Both Tanaka and Saki are married”. My brain doesn’t register that as they are married to each other the same way as the original sentence.

[@youngbloodma677]

Are there any videos related to Pragmatics & Morphology? Sir!

[@loannguyencaothanh6373]

thank you for the lesson

[@xuan-gottfriedyang5094]

can one say, the meaning of a (declarative) sentence is the set of the worlds (or situations) in which this sentence is true?

[@Trevtutor]

Yeah, but usually the conditions are more specified depending on model theory or functional theory. E.g it’s true iff the subject is an element of the verb phrase where the verb phrase is a set of objects that do the verb.

[@xuan-gottfriedyang5094]

@@Trevtutor with "objects" you don't mean in grammatical (syntactic) sense (i.e. complements of a verb)? I guess you mean persons or things

[@tanvirkaisar7245]

how entailment is different from implication?

[@Trevtutor]

Entailment is guaranteed truth. Implication is likely but not necessarily true based on expectations of the language/world.

[@donaldhobson8873]

A single album that is both rock and rap?

[@aliawde4970]

Great efforts! I study real analysis at university and I understand but I don't know how to solve problems, any advice or any specific video Doctor? Thanks so much 🙏🏻 ❤

[@philosophyversuslogic]

So, if I assume a certain sentence p, then any q, r, s, ..., etc are semantically true, if p is true, right? But there's a problem, because no q, r, s, ..., etc sentences are linked to p. We don't know whether or not q or r, or s, or ..., etc are intentionally related to each other. So, that's why it might be that while 'my dog's eating a slice of pork, there's a microscopic activity on a volcano of a planet Mars'. If the antecedent here is true, then so what if the consequent is true? This doesn't show the inference relations between them. So, my opinion that this way doesn't work, we can ground on a language itself to do any of such conclusions. What we've got is the world or the experience in the world uttered by/via a certain language or languages, and using them we only represent the experienced world. In other words, the world is prior or it must be real, and language is just a tool to help us to express that stuff in our heads out.

[@xuan-gottfriedyang5094]

hope with semantics you mean compositional semantics not lexical semantics which is boring