A huge thank you to you ,professor 🙏 ❤️ You are absolutely unique in teaching Us Linguistic ❤️ I definitely believe that you are super extraordinary lecturer in the 21st century. That is my humble opinion. I'm incredibly excited to learn more about Linguistic from your terrific channel. With much belief in you. Many thanks for your commitment to teach us easily and effectively. I really appreciate your time (and you )
Mr. Handke, just in case someone hasn't told you in the past 10 minutes how great an instructor you are, let me be the first! I love the material you put together, and the Activboard really makes the presentations a joy. Keep up the great work!
Ren Stimpy Thank you very much, such a comment at the beginning of a year is a MUST to not only continue like this but to improve - slowly but steadily.
Register (free) on oer-vlc.de and self- enrol to VLC103 - The Nature of Meaning. Then you can use all you need for semantics. No fees, open and online/mobile.
sir at 5:26 it is confusing cause According to my intuition it will be TRUE. cause, It may be possible that Caesar died |= (Brutus has killed him OR Brutus has not killed him).
You're right. This explanation isn't right. Entailment is a meta proposition, not a proposition itself, so it should not appear as a column in a truth table (columns are preserved for propositions). A proposition p entails another q (p |= q) iff there is no way that p can be true and q false, so you'd have to check *all* rows in the truth table to know if p |= q. Equivalently, p entails q iff p -> q is always true.
I have some confusion about the paraphrase of p: John is a man and q: John is a male. I would say p entails q but q doesn't entail p because John could be a boy.
The key point is the relation between P and Q, p is T and Q is T ,then entailment is correct! Furthermore, there must exist meaning between P and Q and it makes sense!
Sorry but if we apply the negativity test to:: p = John loves Mary. q = John does not love Mary. p & ¬q = John loves Mary and John does love Mary. Is this sentence logical? If yes, p does not entail q. Since p contradicts q and since contradiction is a type of entailment, these sentences should entail. What kind of error am I doing in this reasoning?
The Virtual Linguistics Campus Is the negativity test applicable when sentence q contradicts sentence p? Is contradiction as type of entailment or should one separate entailment and contradiction?
You got it right. If p & q is a contradiction, then p can not entail q. But p will entail ¬q under that circumstance. So if q already has a negation in it, ¬q cancels it out. So with the values you gave for p and q: John loves Mary, and it is not the case that John does not love Mary. Both propositions entail each other.
You could say that q is the same as ~p, in which case p & ~q is the same as p & p, which which is the same as just p by itself. So p does not entail q (~p) as it is possible (in this case necessary) for p to be true and q (~p) to be false.
This explanation isn't quite right. Entailment is a meta proposition, not a proposition itself, so it should not appear as a column in a truth table (columns are reserved for propositions). A proposition p entails another q (p |= q) iff there is no way that p can be true and q false, so you'd have to check *all* rows in the truth table to know if p |= q. If for all rows in which p is true then q is also true, then p entails q (p |= q). Equivalently, p entails q iff p -> q is always true.
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Grice's Maxims, Implicature, Presupposition](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CGJGIWqnSFY/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't believe how well this was explained... Thank u so much!
Jürgen, du bist der bester!!!!! habe einen Exam morgen und das Video war eine GROSSE hilfe!
My God, his oratory makes the content wonderfully understandable
Your demonstration technique is wonderful! شكرا
A huge thank you to you ,professor 🙏 ❤️
You are absolutely unique in teaching Us Linguistic ❤️ I definitely believe that you are super extraordinary lecturer in the 21st century. That is my humble opinion.
I'm incredibly excited to learn more about Linguistic from your terrific channel.
With much belief in you.
Many thanks for your commitment to teach us easily and effectively.
I really appreciate your time (and you )
Thanks a lot. Join us on oer-vlc.de to get even more, for free.
Best content I have seen regarding entailment. Love it.
best lecture i have ever watched in my life....
Thank you!
Thanks a million prof Dr.
You are absolutely unique in teaching style. I wish I were in Germany 🇩🇪. 🇩🇪
I really appreciate your time and you ❤️
Mr. Handke, just in case someone hasn't told you in the past 10 minutes how great an instructor you are, let me be the first! I love the material you put together, and the Activboard really makes the presentations a joy. Keep up the great work!
Ren Stimpy Thank you very much, such a comment at the beginning of a year is a MUST to not only continue like this but to improve - slowly but steadily.
how is implication different from entailment?
You are a great teacher! I'm not into linguistics. It's just part of my degree, but you make studying it less boring and easier. Thanks a lot!
You are the best teacher ever! Thanks so much indeed Sir!
May God reward you if the world do not...
Thanks a lot! We'll continue trying hard.
Thank you very much!
Thanks so much Dr. Jurgen your explanation added more about my understanding in linguistics about semantics.
Register (free) on oer-vlc.de and self- enrol to VLC103 - The Nature of Meaning. Then you can use all you need for semantics. No fees, open and online/mobile.
you are a great teacher, you really helped me a lot thank you
Thanks so much. The best lecture ever!
I want to know about 'presupposition'. Could you make a video on that?
ณัฐภัทร นิลพาณิชย์ Yes, we need it for our MOOC 103.
Thank you so much. It's great work you are doing.
You are the best teacher ! Thank you very much
I'm so grateful sir, I really benefited from the lecture thanks alot
Thanks a lot you are really a very good teacher you make things seem beautifully simple
i started to like linguistic, cause of you..thank you so much Sir :)
It's helpfull...thank you so much ^^
Is P and Q constant variables?
sir at 5:26 it is confusing cause
According to my intuition it will be TRUE.
cause,
It may be possible that Caesar died |= (Brutus has killed him OR Brutus has not killed him).
You're right. This explanation isn't right. Entailment is a meta proposition, not a proposition itself, so it should not appear as a column in a truth table (columns are preserved for propositions).
A proposition p entails another q (p |= q) iff there is no way that p can be true and q false, so you'd have to check *all* rows in the truth table to know if p |= q.
Equivalently, p entails q iff p -> q is always true.
thank you for such a brilliant lecture.
I have some confusion about the paraphrase of p: John is a man and q: John is a male. I would say p entails q but q doesn't entail p because John could be a boy.
The key point is the relation between P and Q, p is T and Q is T ,then entailment is correct! Furthermore, there must exist meaning between P and Q and it makes sense!
studying for my final exam !!
Sorry but if we apply the negativity test to::
p = John loves Mary.
q = John does not love Mary.
p & ¬q = John loves Mary and John does love Mary.
Is this sentence logical? If yes, p does not entail q.
Since p contradicts q and since contradiction is a type of entailment, these sentences should entail.
What kind of error am I doing in this reasoning?
yukistardust84 What do you want to show with the negation test here?
The Virtual Linguistics Campus Is the negativity test applicable when sentence q contradicts sentence p? Is contradiction as type of entailment or should one separate entailment and contradiction?
You got it right. If p & q is a contradiction, then p can not entail q. But p will entail ¬q under that circumstance. So if q already has a negation in it, ¬q cancels it out. So with the values you gave for p and q:
John loves Mary, and it is not the case that John does not love Mary.
Both propositions entail each other.
What is p and q ? I still don't get it
You could say that q is the same as ~p, in which case p & ~q is the same as p & p, which which is the same as just p by itself. So p does not entail q (~p) as it is possible (in this case necessary) for p to be true and q (~p) to be false.
Thank you.explicitly explained
It's helpful. Thanks, sir.
wow this is very clear to me. Thank you sir
thank you so much dear teacher you helped me a lot to understand
presupposition maybe not proposition ?
Thank. U. Sirr can u explain prresuposition in details
Do all Germans write F like a katakana Ki (キ)?
That was really helpful. Thanks
Thanks for the lesson, it helped.
Now I go out to buy a purple dog :)
Great video... I don't know whether you're writing a 'F' or not though!?
F = False.
it looks like a 'T' and 't' combined! Maybe it's a Scandinavian thing!
It's my bad handwriting. I meant to write F or T but nothing in between.
Is it proposition or presupposition?
Guillermo Jurado
He is talking about propositions.
That was great!!
great pprofessor
you saved me
you're genius
John cooked an egg entails John boiled an egg?
This explanation isn't quite right. Entailment is a meta proposition, not a proposition itself, so it should not appear as a column in a truth table (columns are reserved for propositions).
A proposition p entails another q (p |= q) iff there is no way that p can be true and q false, so you'd have to check *all* rows in the truth table to know if p |= q. If for all rows in which p is true then q is also true, then p entails q (p |= q).
Equivalently, p entails q iff p -> q is always true.