to boldly go"

[Laurence Horn]

At 10:45 PM +0000 1/30/08, ronbutters at aol.com wrote:
>On the contrary, it is only because they are aware of where they and
>their audience are "positioned" that they can assume that the new.
>version makes sense. The "full" utterance (including the
>contextually understood portions) is something like "go where no one
>[from our world, as normally construed, e.g., excluding angels] has
>gone before."
>
>Larry was arguing that "one" is more general than "person" because
>"one" could apply to Klingons and "person" could not.

Actually, I said that about "human" (and "man"), not about "person".
The difference is significant, at least for me.  My cats have
personality, but not much humanity.

LH

>The discussion so far seems to me to indicate that Larry is wrong
>about this. It now makes sense to me to argue that the following is
>unacceptable within the sf universe (ie, Spock is lying):
>
>Kirk: Was no one in the room with you?
>Spock (knowing that a Klingon was in the room with him): No one.
>
>But it seems to me that this would also be a lie:
>
>Kirk: Was no other person in the room with you?
>Spock (knowing that a Klingon was in the room with him): No one.
>
>Or even
>
>Kirk: Were you the only man in the room?
>Spock (knowing that a Klingon was in the room with him): Yes.
>
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
>
>Date:         Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:24:43
>To:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Subject:      Re: [ADS-L] "to boldly go"
>
>
>I'd say that when they changed "no man" to "no one", they didn't think (as
>we do) about fussy little questions like what universe the voice-over is in.
>
>m a m
>
>On Jan 30, 2008 2:33 PM, <RonButters at aol.com> wrote:
>
>>  So the voice-over is not in the same universe of discourse as the program
>>  itself? Or is the speaker just wrong--since we know that there are lots of
>>  places
>>  in the universe where "sapients" other than humans have gone?
>>
>>  Not to mention angels ...
>>
>>  In a message dated 1/30/08 2:03:00 PM, thnidu at GMAIL.COM writes:
>>
>>
>>  > ISTM that as soon as you refer to Klingons, including asking whether
>>  > Klingons qualify as "one", you have entered an sf universe of discourse.
>>  The
>>  > possible referents of "(some/any/no) one", to me, are just about
>>  equivalent
>>  > to the referents of "person". If you refer to Klingons at all, you are
>>  > referring to sapients: individuals whose intelligence and personhood is
>>  of
>>  > the same level as that of humans, and who (not "which") are therefore
>>  > persons and therefore are included in "-one" references.
>>  >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org