Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DILDOS_UNITED t1_iycwhxt wrote

Actually the order does imply order, it’s the context that negates that implication. So yes, the order is inferred from the sentence but only if context is ignored.

Switching the sentence, “Death metal singers use the same techniques as bats to vocalise” implies they got their techniques from bats solely by the ordering of the words and this is made somewhat believable because it’s potentially true. Without context you’d be unable to infer from this ambiguous sentence wether it’s an objective statement about their vocalisation techniques or if they really learned it from bats. More context would be needed.

Worth noting that the implications of words/sentences are fairly subjective and especially ruined when argued about.

2

contrabardus t1_iycyqwg wrote

Not true.

There is no implication that Death Metal singers learned their vocal methods from bats, only that they use the same kind of vocal technique.

The statement is that Death Metal vocalists learned to do the same thing bats do naturally, without influence from bats to learn. Not that one directly influenced the other.

That is a big reason why the order is irrelevant.

This is not a statement of cause and effect that links the two ideas as one leading to the other to begin with. It's a comparison of like to like.

It's "A" is the same as "B" and the order of "A" and "B" is irrelevant in that kind of statement.

It is not "A" caused "B" in which case order does matter.

The statement "I poured gravy on my mashed potatoes and it eroded a canyon into them, so it is like the Grand Canyon." does not imply that my mashed potatoes existed before the Grand Canyon did.

This is the exact same situation.

What you're suggesting is like saying that if I say that "Bats and Birds both use wings to fly", it suggests that Bats copied their wings from Birds, and that bats existed before birds did.

3