X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=damn.mdwn;h=6913c2838815de65efb2e27ef7f3c844ca0ee3f3;hp=f484a96eef0178c8ba27e568f584f695c722f9ce;hb=aa82fa84a083b7b90862f5f4c368f07dd62ae717;hpb=bce61d3c028464b6bea42a46dd7ac471835759eb

diff --git a/damn.mdwn b/damn.mdwn
index f484a96e..6913c283 100644
--- a/damn.mdwn
+++ b/damn.mdwn
@@ -1,3 +1,20 @@
+1. Sentences have truth conditions.
+
+2. If "John read the book" is true, then
+   John read something,
+   Someone read the book,
+   John did something to the book, 
+   etc.
+
+3. If "John read the damn book",
+   all the same entailments follow.
+   To a first approximation, "damn" does not affect at-issue truth
+   conditions.  
+
+4. "Damn" does contribute information about the attitude of the speaker
+   towards some aspect of the situation described by the sentence.
+
+
 Expressives such as "damn" have side effects that don't affect the
 at-issue value of the sentence in which they occur.  What this claim
 says is unpacked at some length here: <http://tinyurl.com/cbarker/salt/interaction/salt.pdf>.
@@ -299,7 +316,7 @@ Now to pair that with an affective side-issue content, we'd instead define `damn
 
 	(define damn (lambda () (shift k (cons (cons 'side-effect 'bad) (k 'id)))))
 
-And voil&agrave;.
+And voil&agrave;!
 
 	(reset (cons (cons 'the 'man) 
 		  (cons 'read