I'm off today to the Epistemic Value Conference at Stirling, if the airlines will let me fly. Most of the papers are available at the link, and I've already learned a lot from them; it should be a great conference.
I'll leave you with a request for an intuition check. How do the following two sentences sound to you, with and without 'really'?
(1) That mouse is [really] small for an elephant.
(2) That mouse is [really] a small elephant.
Are they obviously sensical? Are they obviously nonsensical? Can they be interpreted in a way that makes sense, but is nevertheless kind of funny?
Posted by Matt Weiner at August 17, 2006 08:46 AMThere are two avenues for these sentences to make sense.
One avenue is that "elephant" is not meant literally, and the speaker is saying via hyperbole that a literal mouse is large. In this case the presence or absence of "really" does not matter. Correct intonation is important-- a flat delivery might sound strange.
The other, more far-fetched possibility is that there is actual controversy over whether the mouse might be an elephant, and the speaker is arguing that it is (2), or that it isn't (1). In this case, the presence of "really" does help, but may not be required. Perhaps both "mouse" and "elephant" are metaphors for something else, like the trade deficit.
Posted by: Richard at August 17, 2006 11:54 AMHi Matt!
Insofar as I can tell what my intuitions are, here's how I reacted:
(1) That mouse is small for an elephant.
By reaction was: "but it's not an elephant". I think I resisted the comparison class being appealed to because it's not clear we're in a context in which being among the xs isn't required for one's size to be measured with a standard used for the xs.
(2) That mouse is a small elephant.
Oh, that's a nice metaphor. I wonder what elephant-like features the mouse has that caused it to be used? Maybe size, maybe how it acts and such . . .
(1*) That mouse is really small for an elephant.
By the time I looked at this, I was having trouble getting non-theoretical intuitions. But insofar as I could tell, my reaction was much like the reaction to (1), but less resistant to the weird comparison class.
(2) That mouse is really a small elephant.
I imagined this being a case where what the audience took to be a mouse was in fact a small elephant.
So, how'd I do?
Oh -- I'm around normal people at the moment! I'll ask them:
(1) That mouse is small for an elephant.
"Nonsensical. The animals shouldn't be compared against one another."
(2) That mouse is a small elephant.
"Better -- the mouse is as big as a small elephant."
(1*) That mouse is really small for an elephant.
"It's more of a contradiction: you're calling a mouse an elephant."
(2) That mouse is really a small elephant.
"That's not true. I don't like it."
Posted by: Shieva at August 17, 2006 07:32 PMI can imagine a context for "That mouse is really a small elephant." Probably not very helpful.
You're looking at photographs and see a gray lump. The person who took the photos says, "That mouse is really a small elephant." (= The scale of the photo is quite different from what would appear at first glance.)
Posted by: Matt's mom at August 18, 2006 01:56 PMHow about:
(3) That cat is [really] little for a pig.
(4) That cat is [really] a little pig.
Without the "really," (4) is not only sensical, but has probably been said many times.
Oink,
Ben
I recall seeing a colony of rock hyraxes in the San Diego Zoo. Small (!) furry critters. They are reputed to be related to the elephants. Follow the link to see a picture, and note the comment.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.astronomy-images.com/day-images/Africa/hyrax.3-18.750px.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.astronomy-images.com/day-images/Africa/hyrax3-18.htm&h=522&w=750&sz=67&hl=en&start=15&tbnid=C-whve8ioYdn9M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhyrax%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
Posted by: Matt's mom at August 19, 2006 09:59 AMDurn. Copy the link up to 750px.jpg and paste it. Sorry.
Posted by: Matt's mom at August 19, 2006 10:01 AMThe "Really" does not affect moi.
However this is really amusing.
If the satan character(s) weren’t in the bible it would only be two pages, stoppin' with ".....god created Eve for Adam and they lived happily ever after. THE END."
Link to Mom's picture.
What if I were confronted with a mouse the size of a rat, and I said "That mouse is small... for an elephant." Would that make sense to anyone?
[I'll say what I'm up to in a bit, but if you've read all the comments I can disclose that my mom's gray lump story is what the original author had in mind.]
Posted by: Matt Weiner at August 22, 2006 11:55 AMTo clarify, "Mom's picture" is not a picture OF me.
Posted by: Matt's mom at August 22, 2006 03:25 PMWhat if I were confronted with a mouse the size of a rat, and I said "That mouse is small... for an elephant." Would that make sense to anyone?
Yes, especially with rising stress. "That mouse is small... for an ELEPHANT."
Posted by: Richard at August 24, 2006 03:40 PM