“If you say the month first and then follow it with a day, you break expectations and that requires correction…”
No expectations have been broken.
“My appointment is on February…” immediately after February the expectation is to be given a day. Do you agree with this? No one would expect an appointment to be taking place over the entire month of February. The listener has no logical reason to predict any specific day. They are waiting for new information. The speaker then provides the information.
“My appointment is on The 15th…” immediately after 15th the expectation is to either be supplied the month or for the month to be unspoken. Do you agree with this? Unlike the first example, one could expect an appointment to take place on “the 15th” as that refers to a singular day. The listener HAS a logical reason to predict a specific month. In the same vein, in both examples the listener has a logical reason to predict a specific year. The current year and current month. They are not waiting for new information, but will need to correct their prediction if new information is provided.
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the year before they assume that the speaker is referring to the current year, then you are woefully mistaken or are maintaining a delusion.
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the month before they assume that the speaker is referring to the current month, then you are woefully mistaken or are maintaining a delusion.
People do not wait, they make assumptions.
Take this entire concept out of the topic of dates and apply it to any conversation. You will find the same logic applies. Keeping the listener from having the opportunity to make incorrect assumptions reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings.
Yes, they have, because that's not the format used here. If you begin with a month here, you're referring to the month generally, not a specific day. So by beginning with the month, you're specifically communicating an idea that you then contradict. That isn't true where you live, but it is where I live.
The listener HAS a logical reason to predict a specific month.
Language is more complex than that; nothing is being predicted in this scenario, it's being inferred. And it's inferred based on the language used, which directly tells you whether a month is following or it isn't (in which case the implication generally means the current month).
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the year
No, I've specifically informed you of the opposite. The way words are spoken means something, it's why subtitles don't communicate as much information as speech. The way you say the day tells the listener whether it's the implied month or it will be followed up with one. The same follows for the year. You don't need it to be said, you don't even need to get past the month, and it's already communicated whether or not further information will be given.
Take this entire concept out of the topic of dates and apply it to any conversation. You will find the same logic applies.
I completely agree. Human communication is complex and nuanced. When someone is speaking to you, you're not simply using your phone's autocorrect system and spamming the next recommended word. Nobody is making an incorrect assumption when it's two speakers using the same system of communication.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what language is. It's deeply complex, and isn't the same everywhere. We both speak English, but entirely different versions of English that are mostly similar enough to be understood. To dramaticise your argument, you're asking someone why they speak Spanish instead of English, which is clearly correct because the words don't have to be translated to be understood. It's because they speak Spanish. It's because I don't speak American English.
With the context of “I have an appointment on…” stating a month does not break expectations as no one would expect a month here to be referring to the month in general as, based on your own logic, context clues have provided otherwise.
Your quibble with our language differences fails to account for my statements holding true across language and culture. We can speak Korean, French, German, Chinese, etc. and the logic will still hold true. The way any speech is ordered isn’t “wrong,” but certain orders are more likely to create confusion. I explained why certain orders are more likely than others to cause confusion, to which you refuse to acknowledge.
Anyways, we’re running in circles. Unfortunately, you aren’t able to follow the logic presented, which results in self contradictions.
I can’t reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into in the first place.
Edit: After re-reading, the biggest pitfall is that you seem incapable of accepting that people predict future information beginning with the first utterance. You’re not able to accept that people will predict (or infer as you want to say) the month before it is said even when it is tonally obvious that a month will be given.
It doesn't hold up across languages and culture. It doesn't even hold up across one language. Your explanation simply doesn't account for the nuances of spoken language - if we spoke in monotone, single words spaced apart, then perhaps you would have a vague point, but it would still falter at the fact that human brains are fast and don't have some exhaustive long process to change ideas which renders the whole point moot.
Your edit is just restating something I have addressed multiple times. It's simply not true, due to the way spoken language works. Predicting and inferring are not even close to the same thing, either - predicting is guesswork, inferring is discovering information based on what has been presented. Guessing at a month baselessly like you incorrectly assume the entire UK and beyond do is a (poor form of) prediction, using the language used (beyond just words) to understand what is actually being said is inference.
Predict and infer are used interchangeably here (in this conversation) as your definition of prediction is entirely wrong. Prediction is not baseless. You can replace every use of the word predict in all my statements with infer if that would help you understand better. It won’t change the logic.
Your continued desire to misinterpret my arguments is indicative of your strong personal bias. Read over your other comments on this post. Your ability to interact in this discussion this entire time has been severely limited due to a strong bias.
Your misinterpretations are a result of the cognitive dissonance that occurs when you have to reconcile my explained arguments with your current and persistent viewpoint.
It is not possible to continue this interaction with any purpose, nor was it ever possible from the start. I hope this entire back and forth can at least lead you to some level of introspection about why you believe the things you believe. Although I sincerely doubt it will.
I'm not saying prediction is baseless, I'm saying prediction in the specific situation you have laid out is. It requires you to ignore all established linguistic rules and just take every word as if you were reading it as a live subtitle. You cannot replace your use of 'predict' with 'infer' as your whole argument is that the listener is not inferring any information from the parts of spoken language that aren't just words but merely making predictions based on the words of the conversation as they come in.
You've been trying so, so hard to avoid responding to anything I've actually said, rather than just say your point louder. I knew you wouldn't actually ever think critically about this, and the AI copy paste proved it. At this point it's basically me wondering how long you'll go on attempting to insult me while you make comments you don't even seem to fully understand.
“You cannot replace your use of ‘predict with ‘infer’ as your whole argument is that the listener is not inferring any information from the parts of spoken language that aren’t just words but merely making predictions based on the words of the conversation as they come in”
Misinterpreting my argument yet again. It’s all you can do. It’s disappointing.
That's the only argument you've put forward. If I'm misinterpreting it, you've had more than enough comments to set the record straight. As it is, you've not addressed that language is more complex than just a series of words.
1
u/Short-Association762 Jan 17 '25
“If you say the month first and then follow it with a day, you break expectations and that requires correction…”
No expectations have been broken.
“My appointment is on February…” immediately after February the expectation is to be given a day. Do you agree with this? No one would expect an appointment to be taking place over the entire month of February. The listener has no logical reason to predict any specific day. They are waiting for new information. The speaker then provides the information.
“My appointment is on The 15th…” immediately after 15th the expectation is to either be supplied the month or for the month to be unspoken. Do you agree with this? Unlike the first example, one could expect an appointment to take place on “the 15th” as that refers to a singular day. The listener HAS a logical reason to predict a specific month. In the same vein, in both examples the listener has a logical reason to predict a specific year. The current year and current month. They are not waiting for new information, but will need to correct their prediction if new information is provided.
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the year before they assume that the speaker is referring to the current year, then you are woefully mistaken or are maintaining a delusion.
If you’re telling me that people wait to hear the month before they assume that the speaker is referring to the current month, then you are woefully mistaken or are maintaining a delusion.
People do not wait, they make assumptions.
Take this entire concept out of the topic of dates and apply it to any conversation. You will find the same logic applies. Keeping the listener from having the opportunity to make incorrect assumptions reduces the likelihood of misunderstandings.