Deontic Modality Puns

Hi. English is not my primary language and I am not sure if indirect speech is the right term here but what I mean with indirect speech is sentences as such:

“Teacher asked students to leave the class.”

“Napoleon ordered Murat to capture the bridge.”

Do u think these sentences are related to Deontic modality in any way as they refer to some kind of obligation / desire relation between teacher and students or Napoleon and Murat?

I’ve searched for some papers but couldn’t find a clear answer. Appreciate any answers or leads, thanks.

English doesn't differentiate between epistemic and deontic must, which is making my conlanging efforts something of a nightmare. An example of where only context can unravel the meaning:

You must speak Spanish.

Deontic: You have to speak Spanish because it's required/it's the rules.

Epistemic: Oh, I heard you say some Spanish words. I'm guessing that you speak Spanish.

How does your conlang express these ideas? For Ezhenesal, deontic must isn't a distinct verb; instead, it translates something like "it is obligatory for you to". I'm having trouble coming up with an epistemic must, though.

Hello, would you guys mind helping me translate these sentences in Arabic? I am unsure how to because i want to keep the subtle differences in each sentence's tone. thank you in advance

1. You may go at 4 o’clock.

2. All programs should take place on schedule.

3. I must phone him.

4. I have to phone him.

5. I need to phone him.

6. I ought to phone him.

7. I should phone him.

8. You can have these postcards for free.

9. You could have these postcards for free.

10)You may have these postcards for free.

11. You might have these postcards for free.

If you dont want to translate the sentences, please help me understand how to translate the modal verbs : must, shall/should, will/would, may/might, can/could

Sort of. Unless it already had it, which it kind of did... but now it's more convenient and grammaticalized!

Anyway, I was recently discussing the similar semantic basis for modality and evidentiality, which suggests that, while these two categories are functionally and syntactically distinct and thus quite justified in being considered separately in natural languages, they could be blurred together in a conlang. And WSL's syntactic constructions for explicit quantification over probability distributions  / possible worlds actually already fill that purpose--both modal and evidential structures can be translated into WSL with that common mechanism. However, the notions that were encoded as single words of the relevant syntactic category (rather than requiring expression as multi-word descriptive phrases) were all strongly mood-ish--so, in order to demonstrate the fuzzy boundary between modality and evidentiality more strongly, I have now expanded WSL's set of "modals" from 4 to 7.

The original modals:

es - indicates that the clause describes exactly one real world, or else all worlds consistent with the known discourse context. This is the default, and is usually phonologically unrealized. It’s presence typically triggers an emphatic reading.

miy - indicates existential quantification (at least one, more allowed) over a superset of "es", including extra worlds made possible by acknowledging imperfect information (roughly meaning  " it could be true, especially if I’m wrong about some things").

bi - irrealis, indicating existential quantification over the set of all possible worlds. Universal quantification over all possible worlds is used for, e.g., logical tautologies.

pek - indicates universal quantification over the set of worlds consistent with a contextually-provided set of ideals. This is roughly equivalent to "should", in the deontic sense.

The new modals:

ac - indicates universal quantification over possible worlds consistent with the subset of the speaker's knowledge gained by direct experience.

akc - indicates universal quantification over possible worlds consistent with the subset of the speaker's knowledge learned from other people. (This is not exactly equivalent to a hearsay evidential, because on its own it still assumes the accuracy of that knowledge.)

het - indicates universal quantification over possible worlds consistent with the subset of the speaker's knowledge derived from logical inference on other data sources.

Like

I really wanted to go deep with the mathematics of the story. Basically, I wanted to devise a legit Theory of Everything in the physicists' sense, but because I couldn't support it scientifically enough, I decided to use it as the basis for a hard sci-fi story instead. But maybe it turned out to be something different from hard sci-fi, too.

One of the core premises is that "the universe" is assigned a function of infinitary logic. At t₀, the signature of the logic is ℒ(0,0). For whatever reason, the shifting of the logic quickly goes from that to ℒ(ω,ω), which corresponds to the intensity of the initial expansion of the universe. A much later shift to the next logic ℒ(ω₁,ω) corresponds to the initial acceleration in the expansion of the later universe. Depending on the function assigning cardinals to the signatures of the shifts, I have considered that one of the next shifts could in fact be far more intense than either the few previous ones. For example, if we used a simple method of transfinite arithmetic to compute the function, then we might have it that the shift after the next one, will go from the alephs with indexes of n, to one of those with a ω+ index.

The story, then, would be about what happened during the next shift, and what might happen during the one after that. I've imagined the prologue being something like a college classroom where transfinite arithmetic is being taught, and the first (relative to the story, historical) shift is such that once it has taken place, everyone in the classroom suddenly can solve problems in higher transfinite arithmetic (from expontentiation onwards) by intuition, whereas in our world, the question of the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be intuited in the same way that a question of finite-numbered arithmetic can be. The second shift's effects are of course yet unknown; harbingers of possible doom might include aliens from a parallel universe with its own specific equation for computing its shifts, who have fled to our universe in the wake of shift-related disaster.

On some more of the possibly hard sci-fi side, there's an idea that depending on what signature your world's logic has at a given time, you can use numbers from any set of cardinality equal to the signature, in your mathematical representations of the laws of physics. So in some sense, the laws of physics change in that the kinds of numbers you can use to represent them change upw

[Foreword: references to the proper class J are to be understood in terms of my MathOverflow question about this proper class.]

You can vary your set theory by using different axioms, or you can use a different logical background altogether. So we have things like CZF or Zach Weber’s paraconsistent set theory. These alternatives are not without intriguing consequences: for example, it has been said that second-order logic grounds a system in which the question, “Is CH completely resolvable?” admits of the answer, “Yes” (although we do not yet know what the specification of this “Yes” would ultimately come down to). Or suppose that you said that the Continuum is “simultaneously” equal to every aleph that it can be forced to equal: this is a paraconsistently admissible hypothesis, and a clever philosophical argument (from the justification-theoretic side of forcing) might be designed on its behalf moreover, wherefore… And then there is the modality-theoretic gloss of universal questions in the Hamkins cosmos. In the spirit of the above variations, I would like to present a set theory in which the logical background is deontic; the hope is that this theory can offer novel and well-justified solutions to an array of problems in the field.

The elementary idea

The easiest way to have some form of DST is to have ought-sentences in the system. Let OB(S) read, “It ought to be that S.” So now we might have OB(x is an element of y), for example. The choice between using the OB-function as a propositional operator or as a predicate is quite important as a logical issue on its own, but for the purposes of DST at present, I will waive the issue and say that we could also have sentences like, “X ought to be an element of Y,” and these capture what DST is meant to be, on an elementary level, just as well as if we only used OB as a propositional operator.

The immediate corollary is: to get deontic ZFC from normal ZFC, take various is-sentences from the latter and translate them into ought-sentences for the former. So now we also have assertions like, “A ought to be the powerset of B,” for example. In the standard expansion of ZFC, we also have nontrivial elementary embeddings in general, so now we also have something like OB(j: M → N).

There’s a saying, “Moral responsibility requires free will,” and one theory of free will requires a specifically give

I understand that Quine took logical truth to be a product of syntactic structure, and truth. I also understand that he was not a big fan of modal logic.

My question is this: how does his view hold up for theories of modal logic that no longer seem to be dealing with mere grammatical structures?

For one thing, modern modal logics seem to rely heavily on possible world semantics, which doesn’t really seem to be syntax anymore. But even if you could reduce alethic (and maybe deontic) modal logics to truth preservation across syntactic structures, it seems to be incorrect to consider things like dynamic or epistemic logic to be merely grammatical. Does this cause troubled for this view of logic?

Where are other places to read up on this?

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Because she wanted to see the task manager.

Heard they've been doing some shady business.

but then I remembered it was ground this morning.

Edit: Thank you guys for the awards, they're much nicer than the cardboard sleeve I've been using and reassures me that my jokes aren't stale

Edit 2: I have already been made aware that Men In Black 3 has told a version of this joke before. If the joke is not new to you, please enjoy any of the single origin puns in the comments

BamBOO!

Hi,

I’m an English teacher who will be teaching a lot of terminology next year so I’m looking for a flashcard app that will allow pupils to revise with digital flash cards. Something that will show, say:

[Front] Deontic modal verb -> [back] An auxiliary verb going before a main verb expressing obligation e.g. You MUST do your homework.

I’m looking for this functionality:

1. For me to make flash cards that pupils can then download and revise from.

2. An app that works on iOS (my main devices), but also Android. Ideally computer support too.

3. An app that allows me to create many different groups of flash cards e.g. Lexis, Grammar, Pragmatics where pupils download each group individually.

4. Free to use for both myself and pupils, or at least a one time purchase on my end. I want to use this app for years so I’m fine paying.

5. Ideally (but not essential) the ability for me to download others’ flash cards and put them on my profile for pupils to use. This isn’t to plagiarise haha; just being time efficient!

Are there any apps like this that you use? I wanted to find one last year but was too busy…

They’re on standbi

Pilot on me!!

A play on words.

Christopher Walken

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Or would that be too forward thinking?

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

When I got home, they were still there.

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

Where ever you left it 🤷‍♀️🤭

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

There hasn't been a post all year!

You take away their little brooms

It was about a weak back.

Hi. English is not my primary language and I am not sure if indirect speech is the right term here but what I mean with indirect speech is sentences as such:

“Teacher asked students to leave the class.”

“Napoleon ordered Murat to capture the bridge.”

Do u think these sentences are related to Deontic modality in any way as they refer to some kind of obligation / desire relation between teacher and students or Napoleon and Murat?

I’ve searched for papers but couldn’t find a clear answer. Appreciate any answers or leads, thanks.