{"id":7767,"date":"2014-08-15T13:27:21","date_gmt":"2014-08-15T13:27:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/08\/15\/is-and-ought\/"},"modified":"2014-08-15T13:27:21","modified_gmt":"2014-08-15T13:27:21","slug":"is-and-ought","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/08\/15\/is-and-ought\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ and Gerundives"},"content":{"rendered":"

I just now noticed that the following two sentences are interchangeable salva significatione<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Gluttony is to be avoided<\/span><\/p>\n

Gluttony ought to be avoided.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A curious linguistic tidbit, possibly of philosophical use later, possibly of no such use at all.  But interesting either way.  So I note it en passant<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Addendum<\/strong> (literally, something to be added or that ought to be added)<\/span><\/p>\n

Seldom Seen Slim e-mails:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
I see that you've just discovered the obsolescent gerundive<\/a> or future passive construction in English.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
"Gluttony is to be avoided" = "Gluttony is a thing to be avoided" = Gluttony is something we should\/ought to avoid" (pretty much equivalent statements).<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
But now are any of these statements at all? How do they differ from the directive "Avoid gluttony!", which is plainly no statement at all.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Well, I was careful to call them sentences, not statements.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
There look to be two puzzles here.  The one that struck me was:  how can a future passive construction be used to make a normative point?  Compare the gluttony example with this one:  'The execution is to occur tomorrow at sunrise.'  This does not mean that the execution ought to occur tomorrow at sunrise, if 'ought' has a normative sense.  Or perhaps a clearer example would be this: 'The sunrise is to occur tomorrow at 5:30 A.M.'  The latter cannot be replaced salva significatione<\/em> by 'The sunrise ought to occur tomorrow at 5:30 A.M.' if 'ought' has normative bite.  It is just a prediction.  It means that the sunrise will occur tomorrow at 5:30 A. M.  It is strictly speaking a future passive construction with no modal component.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Slim's concern is different.  His question, I take it, is this.  When I utter 'Guttony is to be avoided' am I making a statement or issuing a command?  I am making a statement.  I am stating that the action-type inordinate eating<\/em> has a certain deontic property, the property of being such that it ought not be tokened. I am using a sentence in the indicative mood to make that statement.  If I utter 'Avoid inordinate eating' I utter a sentence in the imperative mood and issue a command.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
The Roman senate or the emperor could say to the army, Cartago delenda est<\/em>, meaning that Carthage is to be\/ought to be\/should be\/must be destroyed.  But the senate or the emperor could say this without issuing a command.<\/span><\/div>\n

 Related articles<\/p>\n

\n<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>'Each Other' versus 'One Another'<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Issues and Problems<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>A Defense of Valley Girl Lingustics<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins most overlooked in our times<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>The Problem of First-Person identity Sentences<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I just now noticed that the following two sentences are interchangeable salva significatione: Gluttony is to be avoided Gluttony ought to be avoided. A curious linguistic tidbit, possibly of philosophical use later, possibly of no such use at all.  But interesting either way.  So I note it en passant. Addendum (literally, something to be added … Continue reading “‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ and Gerundives”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}