|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
OP
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 81 |
I've noticed I make a distinction between seeing objects and seeing parts of arguments. If you point out a bird moving round I might say "I can't see it... Oh yes, now I can."
Whereas in arguments, I would say "I don't see" the objection, or point, or connection, or inference, if I thought that perhaps there was one but I was being too glib or obtuse to consider it properly. But if I said "I can't see" it, it's stronger: I rather suspect there isn't any good objection, connection or whatever to be seen.
My question is this. I understand in American usage "don't see" is the normal form for physical seeing, so do users of that form make the same distinction as me in arguments?
(And of course there's habitual uses, which are not relevant here: you don't see them every day, I can't see through microscopes, etc.)
The distinction seems to be clearer in the negative, though it applies in the positive too: "Where's the bird? Oh, I can see it now" v. "I see the problem here" (it's fairly obvious) v. "I can see the problem here" (I've managed to find it).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Jenet: I do enjoy discussion of such fine points.
"Oh, I see, said the blind man."
"There are those who have eyes and see not."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
By way of example, I would like to say to you: "I don't see it that way" - but actually I do!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
Hi Jenet! It may be a fine distiction as Dr Bill says, and I can’t speak for USen’s, but I think you are right from a Brit’s perspective.
It seems to me that the difference lies between the observational failure of “I do not see it” (which implies that the possibility exists) and the constitutional failure of “I cannot see it” (which implies that you will never be able to do so). Either way is frequently used in either way, however, with just the context making the meaning clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I would use either "can't" or "don't" see for the unspied bird with little if any distinction. I would also use either for an argument but "don't" would imply a lack of understanding and "can't" an understanding but disagreement as to the validity of the argument. There would probably be other differences, e.g., "I don't see what you're getting at," vs. "I can't see it that way."
As an aside, in my youth I had some contact with a number of blind people. They all pretty much used "see" in the figurative sense. There was no discomfort using the term with them if you understood this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
For the invisible bird I would use either but they do feel different: "I don't see the bird." meaning please point, I haven't found it yet. and "I can't see the bird" meaning It is behind a tree and it isn't physically possible for me to see it.
In an argument I would, like Faldage, use the same distinction. I would also use either for an argument but "don't" would imply a lack of understanding and "can't" an understanding but disagreement as to the validity of the argument.
There is also the difference in vehemence, both for birds and arguments,eg "I don't agree." vs "I can't agree."
cross-thread alert - denotation vs connotation
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,892
Members9,197
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
357
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
