(12)a. John is no longer the caption-writer-in-chief b. John was once the caption-writer-in-chief (13)a Mary managed to stopped the car b. Mary tried to stopped the car If we use p as the proposition contained in(1la) and q as the proposition in (11b), then using ">> for to presuppose, we can represent (11)in the following way (11)a Mary stopped beating her husband.( =p b. Mary used to beat her husband. q) c p >> q
• (12) a. John is no longer the caption-writer-in-chief. b. John was once the caption-writer-in-chief. • (13) a. Mary managed to stopped the car. b. Mary tried to stopped the car. If we use p as the proposition contained in (11a) and q as the proposition in (11b), then using “>>” for “to presuppose”, we can represent (11) in the following way: (11) a. Mary stopped beating her husband. (= p) b. Mary used to beat her husband. (= q) c. p >> q
The relationship as exemplified in(11)serves as a good case of semantic presupposition or logic presupposition, which can be best characterized as allOWS (14) Sentence A semantically presupposes Sentence B if (a) in all situations where A is true, B is true (b) in all situations where A is false, B is true According to this definition, if we negate a sentence, its original presupposition still exists (15)a. Mary did not stop beating her husband >>b. Mary used to beat her husband earlier (16) a. Mary did not manage to stop the car >b. Mary tried to stop the car
• The relationship as exemplified in (11) serves as a good case of semantic presupposition or logic presupposition, which can be best characterized as follows: • (14) Sentence A semantically presupposes Sentence B if: (a) in all situations where A is true, B is true (b) in all situations where A is false, B is true According to this definition, if we negate a sentence, its original presupposition still exists: • (15) a. Mary did not stop beating her husband. >> b. Mary used to beat her husband earlier. • (16) a. Mary did not manage to stop the car. >> b. Mary tried to stop the car