Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,237
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
You're proceeding from a false premise. The second X in <"X" X> does not have a subject. As you said, X is not a sentence. X is a sentence fragment. Subjects are something sentences have. <"X" X> is a sentence; it has a subject, the <"X"> plus part of the <X>: up to but not including the main verb.What is the subject of the second X in <"X" X>? Is it <X>, i.e. the X between the quotation marks, or is it <"X">, i.e. a string of characters that includes the two quotation marks? We just don't know (that's why I suggested earlier to put the "The phrase" before the quoted part to remove the ambiguity.Your reasoning sounds like the fallacy of composition. Why would X have to be a sentence in order for <"X" X> to be a sentence?Your example can be reduced to: <"X" X>. What I meant was that X is not a sentence. So, even preceded by itself it's still not a sentence.
As far as the quotation marks are concerned, the object consisting of the quotation marks and the embedded text refers to the embedded text; quotation marks do not quote themselves.
I disagree. So does Wikipedia. The rule requiring capital letters at the front of sentences is orthography, not grammar. Besides, the rule should be suspended when a sentence starts with a quotation, in the interests of making it easier to unambiguously indicate whether the quoted material starts with a capital letter.It's different from your example in that it is self-explanatory. The second part explains properly how to take the quoted part, i.e. as a sentence fragment, which it is. So we have a way of understanding what the whole means, although it's also not a sentence (no capital letter).My earlier link contained a link to this counterexample:
"is a sentence fragment." is a sentence fragment.
Be that as it may, fine, have it your way. I'll just change my counterexample to start with a capital letter.
"IS A SENTENCE FRAGMENT." IS A SENTENCE FRAGMENT.
How do you figure something can be true without being a true sentence? By being Thomas the Rhymer? ("True Thomas lay on Huntlie bank; ...")However, the example also does not pretend to be a sentence (unlike in your own example). So, although it's not a sentence, it is still both understandable and true. Yet, still not a true sentence.
The logical issue isn't with the example per se; the issue is that it's a counterexample to the rule of inference you proposed. "What I meant was that X is not a sentence. So, even preceded by itself it's still not a sentence." That does not follow. You cannot correctly deduce that <"X" X> is not a sentence from the circumstance that X is not a sentence.Also, unlike your example, there is not suggestion of this thing being self-referential. There's no logical issue here at all.
"CONTAINS THREE WORDS." CONTAINS THREE WORDS.This thing is true, although not a sentence. It's Ok since it doesn't pretend to be one and if nobody says it is one.Here's an even simpler counterexample.
"contains three words." contains three words.
That doesn't pretend to be a sentence; that is a sentence.