[lit-ideas] "Sure" (Was: Jenny)
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:36:18 EDT
In a message dated 9/4/2004 6:55:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Despite all of this linguistic running in place, it seems to me that someone
who
responds 'Sure,' to the question 'Do you mind if I sit here?' hears the
question
as 'May I sit here?' This has the virtue of de-mystifying the response.
People
seldom answer 'Sure,' when asked 'Is this seat taken?'
---
Yep. I was thinking about that.
Problem with "sure" is the _meaning_. It means "secure, safe". But _what_
*is* 'safe, secure', when someone answers "Sure"?
There are various possibilities, if not infinite, as R. Paul claims.
Let's revise the little dialogue again:
A: Do you mind if I smoke?
B: Sure.
In R. Paul's logic, "Sure", on B's part, amounts to "You _may_ smoke". Not
in my idiolect.
Strictly, "Sure", in B's reply is _ambiguous_.
(i) it can be taken as a _propositional_ operator: "it is a safe thing to
say that I _do_ mind if you smoke." That's how I interpret it.
(ii) 'sure' can apply to _B's_ propositional attitudes (or beliefs),
amounting to: "I _am_ sure that I _do_ mind if you smoke".
(iii) Thirdly, sure can apply to _A's_ propositional attitudes: "Be secure
that I do mind that you smoke".
---
R. Paul writes:
>People seldom answer 'Sure,'
>when asked 'Is this seat taken?'
The reason seems _Cartesian_. There is no evidence -- in the scenario --
that it should be secure (safe) to infer (on the part of anyone) that the seat
is taken. Unless there is a handbag on it, there may not be any _physical_
signs that the seat is taken. Indeed, it's almost analytic that the seat is
_not_
taken (unless we accept that it can be _taken_ by a ghost or an invisible
person. (The loose meaning of 'taken', though, is 'reserved' in the scenario).
In the case of "Do you mind if ...", there is an indeterminacy (one does not
know if one's addressee _will_ mind to one's smoking). If so, "Sure" seems
like a sort of 'anti-Cartesian' reply, for A would _not_ _know_ if B minded or
not _before_ B says so -- so there's no real need to minimize A's
intellectual capabilities by emphasizing things ("_Sure -- I do mind" --
"Sure", says
who?, or "Sure" to who?)
In Latin, the proper way was the use of the adverbial, "Securice" -- which
narrowed down the levels of interpretive ambiguity.
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
