1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
to think that.

2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
to think that.

Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?

What that 'that' refer to in them?

To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
'2' has a similar problem.

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in strange structures that are on the margins of grammaticality
Obsessed with ambiguity

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 5:31:48 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> to think that.
>
> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> to think that.
>
> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?

Then don't say them.

> What that 'that' refer to in them?

No idea.

Change the last word to "so."

> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> '2' has a similar problem.

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:31:48 AM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> to think that.
>
> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> to think that.
>
> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?

Probably. I can imagine someone using 1 to mean "He was too arrogant,
as you can see because he thought that."

As PTD suggested, "think that" is colloquial for "think so," which is used
in all registers.

> What that 'that' refer to in them?
>
> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> '2' has a similar problem.

This is an example where I'd really like to see a real utterance, especially
since you say "Aren't they...?" implying that there's some question.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 02:31:45 -0700 (PDT), arthurvv vart
<arthurvarr@gmail.com> wrote:

>1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
>to think that.
>
>2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
>to think that.
>
>Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
>
>What that 'that' refer to in them?
>
>To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
>was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
>'2' has a similar problem.

I think the problem goes away when you insert the
comma before 'to think that' -- What rule?

To indicate the pause. To set off the phrase as
being in apposition.

--
Rich Ulrich

Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:31:48 AM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
>> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
>> to think that.
>>
>> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
>> to think that.
>>
>> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
>
> Probably.

I'd say the sentence *pairs* are *mutually* contradictory, personally.
No individual sentence contradicts it*self*.

> I can imagine someone using 1 to mean "He was too arrogant,
> as you can see because he thought that."
>
> As PTD suggested, "think that" is colloquial for "think so," which is used
> in all registers.

I'd say "think that" was "think that [thought]". And the thoughts have
clearly been expressed in the prior sentence, both being in the negative.
>> What that 'that' refer to in them?
>>
>> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
>> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
>> '2' has a similar problem.
>
> This is an example where I'd really like to see a real utterance, especially
> since you say "Aren't they...?" implying that there's some question.

Nah, this is an arthurvv thread - it's going to be some bizarre
contrivance.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 02:31:45 -0700 (PDT), arthurvv vart
> <arthurvarr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
>>to think that.
>>
>>2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
>>to think that.
>>
>>Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
>>
>>What that 'that' refer to in them?
>>
>>To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
>>was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
>>'2' has a similar problem.
>
> I think the problem goes away when you insert the
> comma before 'to think that' -- What rule?
>
> To indicate the pause. To set off the phrase as
> being in apposition.

That doesn't work at all for me, if anything it makes them worse.
I'd fix the issue by substituting "otherwise" for "that". Literally
refer to the opposite, as that is what he was too arrogant to think.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 2:41:35 PM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:31:48 AM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
> >> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> >> to think that.
> >>
> >> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> >> to think that.
> >>
> >> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
> >
> > Probably.
>
> I'd say the sentence *pairs* are *mutually* contradictory, personally.
> No individual sentence contradicts it*self*.

I agree.

> > I can imagine someone using 1 to mean "He was too arrogant,
> > as you can see because he thought that."
> >
> > As PTD suggested, "think that" is colloquial for "think so," which is used
> > in all registers.
>
> I'd say "think that" was "think that [thought]".

And a common way to say that, in all registers, is "think so".

> And the thoughts have
> clearly been expressed in the prior sentence, both being in the negative.

Yes.

> >> What that 'that' refer to in them?
> >>
> >> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> >> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> >> '2' has a similar problem.
> >
> > This is an example where I'd really like to see a real utterance, especially
> > since you say "Aren't they...?" implying that there's some question.
>
> Nah, this is an arthurvv thread - it's going to be some bizarre
> contrivance.

Maybe he saw or heard something similar. He may tell us.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 2:46:17 PM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 02:31:45 -0700 (PDT), arthurvv vart
> > <arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> >>to think that.
> >>
> >>2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> >>to think that.
> >>
> >>Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
> >>
> >>What that 'that' refer to in them?
> >>
> >>To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> >>was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> >>'2' has a similar problem.
> >
> > I think the problem goes away when you insert the
> > comma before 'to think that' -- What rule?
> >
> > To indicate the pause. To set off the phrase as
> > being in apposition.
>
> That doesn't work at all for me, if anything it makes them worse.
> I'd fix the issue by substituting "otherwise" for "that". Literally
> refer to the opposite, as that is what he was too arrogant to think.

How about "He was too arrogant, thinking that"?

That's the sort of thing I suggested and I believe Rich suggested--
that the sentences are not contradictory, but the second one is poorly
written.

Your suggestion solves the problem in a different way.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 2:12:05 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 2:46:17 PM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> writes:
> > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 02:31:45 -0700 (PDT), arthurvv vart
> > > <arthu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> > >>to think that.
> > >>
> > >>2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> > >>to think that.
> > >>
> > >>Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
> > >>
> > >>What that 'that' refer to in them?
> > >>
> > >>To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> > >>was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> > >>'2' has a similar problem.
> > >
> > > I think the problem goes away when you insert the
> > > comma before 'to think that' -- What rule?
> > >
> > > To indicate the pause. To set off the phrase as
> > > being in apposition.
> >
> > That doesn't work at all for me, if anything it makes them worse.
> > I'd fix the issue by substituting "otherwise" for "that". Literally
> > refer to the opposite, as that is what he was too arrogant to think.
> How about "He was too arrogant, thinking that"?
>
> That's the sort of thing I suggested and I believe Rich suggested--
> that the sentences are not contradictory, but the second one is poorly
> written.
>
> Your suggestion solves the problem in a different way.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Thank you all very much,

I read something like it in a letter sent to me.

Indeed, no single sentence is self-contradictory. I thought each pair
was self-contradictory. First we say someone thought something, and
then we add that he was too. arrogant/pessimistic... to think that. Does
that imply that he didn't think it? If it does then we have a contradiction.

But, maybe, we are saying that because he was too arrogant/pessimistic
he thought that! His being too arrogant/pessimistic caused him to think
that.

It boils down to this:

He was too arrogant to do it.

a) He didn't do it because he was too arrogant.
b) He was too arrogant and that's why he did it.

Judging by your responses, I think both readings
are possible.

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in strange structures
Obsessed with ambiguity

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:59:26 PM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
> Thank you all very much,
>
> I read something like it in a letter sent to me.
>
> Indeed, no single sentence is self-contradictory. I thought each pair
> was self-contradictory. First we say someone thought something, and
> then we add that he was too. arrogant/pessimistic... to think that. Does
> that imply that he didn't think it? If it does then we have a contradiction.
>
> But, maybe, we are saying that because he was too arrogant/pessimistic
> he thought that! His being too arrogant/pessimistic caused him to think
> that.
>
> It boils down to this:
>
> He was too arrogant to do it.
>
> a) He didn't do it because he was too arrogant.
> b) He was too arrogant and that's why he did it.
>
> Judging by your responses, I think both readings
> are possible.

Using it to mean b) is conceivable but I think just about anyone would call
it a mistake. People do make mistakes.

I can see why you don't want to quote a letter to you, but it's also conceivable--it's
happened--that in adapting what you saw , you might have left something out
that would have changed our responses.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:33:26 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:59:26 PM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
> > Thank you all very much,
> >
> > I read something like it in a letter sent to me.
> >
> > Indeed, no single sentence is self-contradictory. I thought each pair
> > was self-contradictory. First we say someone thought something, and
> > then we add that he was too. arrogant/pessimistic... to think that. Does
> > that imply that he didn't think it? If it does then we have a contradiction.
> >
> > But, maybe, we are saying that because he was too arrogant/pessimistic
> > he thought that! His being too arrogant/pessimistic caused him to think
> > that.
> >
> > It boils down to this:
> >
> > He was too arrogant to do it.
> >
> > a) He didn't do it because he was too arrogant.
> > b) He was too arrogant and that's why he did it.
> >
> > Judging by your responses, I think both readings
> > are possible.
> Using it to mean b) is conceivable but I think just about anyone would call
> it a mistake. People do make mistakes.
>
> I can see why you don't want to quote a letter to you, but it's also conceivable--it's
> happened--that in adapting what you saw , you might have left something out
> that would have changed our responses.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Thank you very much, Jerry,

It is very kind of you to take so much time and effort to reply
to my questions.

I might have misunderstood the intent of the writer of the letter.
This kind of thing happens to me. I cannot argue with that!

I am very good at getting confused!

Thanks again.

--
Respectfully,
Navi

Dazed and confused in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in strange structures on the margins of grammaticalilty
Obsessed with ambiguity

Le 01/11/2023 à 09:31, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>
> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> to think that.
>
> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> to think that.
>
> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
>
> What that 'that' refer to in them?
>
> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> '2' has a similar problem.

How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
rules or principles?

Just curious.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 01/11/2023 à 09:31, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> >
> > 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> > to think that.
> >
> > 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> > to think that.
> >
> > Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
> >
> > What that 'that' refer to in them?
> >
> > To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> > was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> > '2' has a similar problem.
> How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
> rules or principles?
>
> Just curious.

I'm reading something, or watching a movie, or talking to someone, or
thinking in English and there is a sentence that comes up and somehow sets off
an alarm in my brain. I think: "It that sentence correct?" or "Isn't that
sentence ambiguous?" Then I start thinking about it. Sometimes I find
the answer to my questions, and sometimes I don't. When I don't, I
make up sentences that have a similar structure to the problematic
sentence. I might use the sentence itself, but sometimes I find it better
not to (far various reasons). Then I come here and ask my questions.

I generally do not work with rules. My knowledge of grammar is not
extensive. I have my own 'grammar'. I haven't written any rules down
or codified anything. I just have my own 'rules', which are 'derived'
from my own problematic examples. Obviously, without a certain
knowledge of grammar, I couldn't think about it at all, but my knowledge
is , as I said, not extensive, and definitely not comprehensive. My approach
is very empirical. I have my own grammatical radar so to speak.

Also, I go to bed very late at night. That's why certain family members
call me 'the bat', but not 'the owl'. Owls look nicer, don't they? But they
don't have radars.

--
Respectfully,
Navi

Flying around late at night in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in structures and sentences on the margins of grammaticality
Obsessed with ambiguity

Le 02/11/2023 à 10:49, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
>> rules or principles?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> I'm reading something, or watching a movie, or talking to someone, or
> thinking in English and there is a sentence that comes up and somehow sets off
> an alarm in my brain. I think: "It that sentence correct?" or "Isn't that
> sentence ambiguous?" Then I start thinking about it. Sometimes I find
> the answer to my questions, and sometimes I don't. When I don't, I
> make up sentences that have a similar structure to the problematic
> sentence. I might use the sentence itself, but sometimes I find it better
> not to (far various reasons). Then I come here and ask my questions.
>
> I generally do not work with rules. My knowledge of grammar is not
> extensive. I have my own 'grammar'. I haven't written any rules down
> or codified anything. I just have my own 'rules', which are 'derived'
> from my own problematic examples. Obviously, without a certain
> knowledge of grammar, I couldn't think about it at all, but my knowledge
> is , as I said, not extensive, and definitely not comprehensive. My approach
> is very empirical. I have my own grammatical radar so to speak.
>
> Also, I go to bed very late at night. That's why certain family members
> call me 'the bat', but not 'the owl'. Owls look nicer, don't they? But they
> don't have radars.

OK, thanks for the explanation.

Owls do look better - which means they have to be warier of taxidermists.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:10:26 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 02/11/2023 à 10:49, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> >>
> >> How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
> >> rules or principles?
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >
> > I'm reading something, or watching a movie, or talking to someone, or
> > thinking in English and there is a sentence that comes up and somehow sets off
> > an alarm in my brain. I think: "It that sentence correct?" or "Isn't that
> > sentence ambiguous?" Then I start thinking about it. Sometimes I find
> > the answer to my questions, and sometimes I don't. When I don't, I
> > make up sentences that have a similar structure to the problematic
> > sentence. I might use the sentence itself, but sometimes I find it better
> > not to (far various reasons). Then I come here and ask my questions.
> >
> > I generally do not work with rules. My knowledge of grammar is not
> > extensive. I have my own 'grammar'. I haven't written any rules down
> > or codified anything. I just have my own 'rules', which are 'derived'
> > from my own problematic examples. Obviously, without a certain
> > knowledge of grammar, I couldn't think about it at all, but my knowledge
> > is , as I said, not extensive, and definitely not comprehensive. My approach
> > is very empirical. I have my own grammatical radar so to speak.
> >
> > Also, I go to bed very late at night. That's why certain family members
> > call me 'the bat', but not 'the owl'. Owls look nicer, don't they? But they
> > don't have radars.
> OK, thanks for the explanation.
>
> Owls do look better - which means they have to be warier of taxidermists.

Tu n'as rien a craindre, s'ils ne comprennent pas le francais.

Le 02/11/2023 à 11:44, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:10:26 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 02/11/2023 à 10:49, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>>>
>>> Also, I go to bed very late at night. That's why certain family members
>>> call me 'the bat', but not 'the owl'. Owls look nicer, don't they? But they
>>> don't have radars.
>> OK, thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> Owls do look better - which means they have to be warier of taxidermists.
>
> Tu n'as rien a craindre, s'ils ne comprennent pas le francais.

C'est rassurant. Je ne deviendrai donc pas un homme de paille !

> >
> > Tu n'as rien a craindre, s'ils ne comprennent pas le francais.
> C'est rassurant. Je ne deviendrai donc pas un homme de paille !

Non, et tu continueras a voler les nuits....

Le verbe 'voler' est ambigu en francais!

T'es francais? J'avais l'impression que ta langue meternelle etait l'anglais.

With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 01/11/2023 à 09:31, arthurvv vart a écrit :

>>>
>>> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
>>> to think that.
>>>
>>> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
>>> to think that.
>>>
>>> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
>>>
>>> What that 'that' refer to in them?
>>>
>>> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
>>> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
>>> '2' has a similar problem.
>> How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
>> rules or principles?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> I'm reading something, or watching a movie, or talking to someone, or
> thinking in English and there is a sentence that comes up and somehow sets
> off an alarm in my brain. I think: "It that sentence correct?" or "Isn't that
> sentence ambiguous?"

Lots of sentences are ambiguous in isolation. But the setting in which
they appear is often enough to resolve the amibiguity. Not always, of
course, and that can cause problems, and those are interesting cases,
but the vast run of amibiguity is swept up in context.

And, as Jerry said, lots of people make mistakes. ("Lots" is equal to
or nearly equal to "Everybody".) Some people make certain errors
consistently, because their internal grammar doesn't match the
community grammar, and others make the occasional slip because glitches
happen.

/dps "see also switch debounce routines"

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

Le 02/11/2023 à 21:42, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> [...]
>>>
>>> Tu n'as rien a craindre, s'ils ne comprennent pas le francais.
>>
>> C'est rassurant. Je ne deviendrai donc pas un homme de paille !
>
> Non, et tu continueras a voler les nuits....
>
> Le verbe 'voler' est ambigu en francais!

En effet, mais le contexte /dérobe/ presque toujours le sens qui n'est
pas applicable.

> T'es francais? J'avais l'impression que ta langue meternelle etait l'anglais.

Il l'est. Je suis anglais, et j'habite en Écosse. Je m'amuse en français
depuis vingt ans, en dilettante, pas en étudiant sérieux.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:54:24 PM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:
> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
> > On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> >> Le 01/11/2023 à 09:31, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>
> >>>
> >>> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
> >>> to think that.
> >>>
> >>> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
> >>> to think that.
> >>>
> >>> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
> >>>
> >>> What that 'that' refer to in them?
> >>>
> >>> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
> >>> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
> >>> '2' has a similar problem.
> >> How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
> >> rules or principles?
> >>
> >> Just curious.
> >
> > I'm reading something, or watching a movie, or talking to someone, or
> > thinking in English and there is a sentence that comes up and somehow sets
> > off an alarm in my brain. I think: "It that sentence correct?" or "Isn't that
> > sentence ambiguous?"
> Lots of sentences are ambiguous in isolation. But the setting in which
> they appear is often enough to resolve the amibiguity. Not always, of
> course, and that can cause problems, and those are interesting cases,
> but the vast run of amibiguity is swept up in context.
>
> And, as Jerry said, lots of people make mistakes. ("Lots" is equal to
> or nearly equal to "Everybody".) Some people make certain errors
> consistently, because their internal grammar doesn't match the
> community grammar, and others make the occasional slip because glitches
> happen.
>
> /dps "see also switch debounce routines"
>
>
> --
> And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
> they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
> Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

Thanks Snidely,

I agree. 'Glitches' are rare, and could happen to anyone. When you hear one,
you know it is a glitch. When I hear one, I start asking questions.

As for ambiguity, the context resolves it almost always, but not always. I admit
that I am obsessed with ambiguity. It is partly because I used to be a translator.

Poets use ambiguity. I suppose lawyers and politicians would like to, but I am not
sure they manage to.

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:53:08 PM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 02/11/2023 à 21:42, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> > [...]
> >>>
> >>> Tu n'as rien a craindre, s'ils ne comprennent pas le francais.
> >>
> >> C'est rassurant. Je ne deviendrai donc pas un homme de paille !
> >
> > Non, et tu continueras a voler les nuits....
> >
> > Le verbe 'voler' est ambigu en francais!
> En effet, mais le contexte /dérobe/ presque toujours le sens qui n'est
> pas applicable.
> > T'es francais? J'avais l'impression que ta langue meternelle etait l'anglais.
> Il l'est. Je suis anglais, et j'habite en Écosse. Je m'amuse en français
> depuis vingt ans, en dilettante, pas en étudiant sérieux.

Bon travail. Ton francais est tres bon pour un dilettante! Felicitations!

Le 04/11/2023 à 00:01, arthurvv vart a écrit :
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 10:53:08 PM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> [...] Je suis anglais, et j'habite en Écosse. Je m'amuse en français
>> depuis vingt ans, en dilettante, pas en étudiant sérieux.
>
> Bon travail. Ton francais est tres bon pour un dilettante! Felicitations!

Merci !

arthurvv vart wrote on 11/3/2023 :
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:54:24 PM UTC-7, Snidely wrote:
>> With a quizzical look, arthurvv vart observed:
>>> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 12:00:08 AM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
>>>> Le 01/11/2023 à 09:31, arthurvv vart a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) He thought nobody could beat him. He was too arrogant
>>>>> to think that.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) You thought nothing would save you. You were too pessimistic
>>>>> to think that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't those sentences self-contradictory?
>>>>>
>>>>> What that 'that' refer to in them?
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, the second sentence in '1' is saying that he
>>>>> was too arrogant to think that nobody could beat him.
>>>>> '2' has a similar problem.
>>>> How do you come up with your examples? Are you working forward from
>>>> rules or principles?
>>>>
>>>> Just curious.
>>>
>>> I'm reading something, or watching a movie, or talking to someone, or
>>> thinking in English and there is a sentence that comes up and somehow sets
>>> off an alarm in my brain. I think: "It that sentence correct?" or "Isn't
>>> that sentence ambiguous?"
>> Lots of sentences are ambiguous in isolation. But the setting in which
>> they appear is often enough to resolve the amibiguity. Not always, of
>> course, and that can cause problems, and those are interesting cases,
>> but the vast run of amibiguity is swept up in context.
>>
>> And, as Jerry said, lots of people make mistakes. ("Lots" is equal to
>> or nearly equal to "Everybody".) Some people make certain errors
>> consistently, because their internal grammar doesn't match the
>> community grammar, and others make the occasional slip because glitches
>> happen.
>>
>> /dps "see also switch debounce routines"
>>
>>
>> --
>> And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
>> they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
>> Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com
>
> Thanks Snidely,
>
> I agree. 'Glitches' are rare, and could happen to anyone. When you hear one,
> you know it is a glitch. When I hear one, I start asking questions.
>
> As for ambiguity, the context resolves it almost always, but not always. I
> admit that I am obsessed with ambiguity. It is partly because I used to be a
> translator.

I wonder what Silvano thinks of that.

> Poets use ambiguity. I suppose lawyers and politicians would like to, but I
> am not sure they manage to.

For lawyers, it depends on which side of the case they are on, perhaps.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

> > As for ambiguity, the context resolves it almost always, but not always. I
> > admit that I am obsessed with ambiguity. It is partly because I used to be a
> > translator.

> I wonder what Silvano thinks of that.

Who is Silvano?

> > Poets use ambiguity. I suppose lawyers and politicians would like to, but I
> > am not sure they manage to.

> For lawyers, it depends on which side of the case they are on, perhaps.
>

Maybe it depends on whether they intend to tell the truth (or what they think
is the truth) or not.