# When you saw a dog, were you frightened?



## HSS

When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
(A grammar book in Japan)

I've been thinking of this sentence for the last hour, trying to come up with a possible setting where it could be uttered. 'When' is used; therefore, you are positive the encounter occurred for sure. Doesn't that automatically bring about 'the' as you know saying this will most probably bring back the memory to your listener, and he/she can identify the dog if he/she has possibly forgotten.

Could anyone please show me an example in which this is said? (Please exclude the ones where this is used to express his/her past habit)


----------



## alastair520

My English is not perfect but I am more than happy to give you my ideas. 
The context would be; you are afraid of dogs and recently you have moved to a area where there is no dogs around.  Then, your neighbor asked you the question "When you saw a dog, were you frightened?"   From what I understand, the past verb is used to indicate "unlikely situation in the future."


----------



## se16teddy

I think Alistair is talking about the sentence _If you saw a dog, would you be frightened? 

When you saw a dog, were you frightened?_ is inevitably discussing a time in the past when the interlocutor had or did not have a *habitual or repeated* fear of dogs. The use of "a" rather than "the" indicates that the speaker is not asking about a specific occasion, but there may have been only a few occasions when the interlocutor was exposed to dogs, so habit is not necessarily implied.


----------



## HSS

Hi, alastair. Hi, Teddy.

The sentence is from a book with no further context, except the author says _*in the speaker's mind*_, the dog in question is _*specific*_, but that dog is *not existent in the listener's mind*. Is something like that possible with 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' ???


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, HSS.

My impression is that the sentence is possible in the following circumstance:

X is speaking with Y; 
X knows that Y is afraid of dogs; 
Y has told X that he has visited a friend and his family and that he expected their pet to be a cat;
the pet turned out to be a dog.

"Were you scared when you saw a dog (_instead of a cat_)?"

Obviously, the same sentence with THE would be perfectly appropriate, too, due to Y's previous mention of the presence of A dog: A —> shared knowledge >THE.
Obviously, the two sentences would _not_ be synonymous. 

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It could be said by someone  asking Mr X about a period in the past.  If Mr X had indicated that there were many things he had seen which had caused him fear, it would be a natural enough question for someone wishing to establish the precise nature of Mr X's fears.

Mr X: when I saw a black mamba, I wasn't frightened, but when I saw a kitten, I was terrified.
Mr Letsfindoutabouthis: when you saw a dog, were you frightened?

The suggestion is that Mr X saw many things during the period, and some of them frightened him.


----------



## HSS

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, HSS.
> 
> My impression is that the sentence is possible in the following circumstance:
> 
> X is speaking with Y;
> X knows that Y is afraid of dogs;
> Y has told X that he has visited a friend and his family and that he expected their pet to be a cat;
> the pet turned out to be a dog.
> 
> "Were you scared when you saw a dog (_instead of a cat_)?"
> 
> Obviously, the same sentence with THE would be perfectly appropriate, too, due to Y's previous mention of the presence of A dog: A —> shared knowledge >THE.
> Obviously, the two sentences would _not_ be synonymous.
> 
> GS


Hi, Giorgio.

Thanks, but


HSS said:


> ... that dog is *not existent in the listener's mind* ...


until the speaker introduces it. In your example, he/she knows there is a dog beforehand.

Thanks, though.


----------



## HSS

Hello, TT.



Thomas Tompion said:


> It could be said by someone  asking Mr X about a period in the past.  If Mr X had indicated that there were many things he had seen which had caused him fear, it would be a natural enough question for someone wishing to establish the precise nature of Mr X's fears.
> 
> Mr X: when I saw a black mamba, I wasn't frightened, but when I saw a kitten, I was terrified.
> Mr Letsfindoutabouthis: when you saw a dog, were you frightened?
> 
> The suggestion is that Mr X saw many things during the period, and some of them frightened him.



But


HSS said:


> ... the author says, _*in the speaker's mind*_, the dog in question is _*specific*_, ...



In your examples, it's any one of the dogs that Mr X could possibly see in the past. So it's not specific ... or is it?

Thanks, TT.


----------



## velisarius

I think of it as a situation where speaker A. has had some encounter with a dog, and speaker B. knows it somehow. During the conversation, interview, or whatever, B. wants to bring up the subject of the encounter with the dog, whereas A. does not have it in mind at the moment and hasn't mentioned it to the speaker.

A. I was alone in the house and at that time I had many fears and phobias, such as ghosts, spiders ... I heard a scratching outside and went to see what it was. I thought it might be a giant rat.
B. When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
A. Not really, because I love dogs.

B. could have said: "When you saw the dog, were you frightened?" but since A. hasn't mentioned the dog he could very well use the indefinite article. "When you saw a dog" suggests he is imagining the reaction of A., who saw a specific dog but one which at the time was just "a dog", one unknown to him until then. If someone had asked A. at the time, he would have said "I see a dog outside the door".

If B. asks "When you saw the dog, were you frightened?" he is looking from his own perspective, zooming in on the dog, singling it out as it were, probably for further discussion.


----------



## HSS

Thanks, velisarius.

Here's what the book says in translation if it helps in any way. I turned it into English as best I could in a short time.



> (1) When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
> (2) When you see a dog, are you frightened?
> 
> 'A  dog' in (1) is the object of the verb 'saw,' in the past tense. And as  it indicates a specific action of seeing a dog, you could say it is a  locution that is made with a specific dog in mind. The reason the  definite article 'the' is not used is the speaker thinks the listener  does not yet know there is the dog. On the other hand, in (2) with the  verb 'see,' in the present tense, the speaker normally means 'any dog.'  He/she is not thinking of a specific dog.
> _*Edit: I corrected (6) to (2). My apologies. I wonder if it would be any help in interpreting the explanation.*_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

This is quite a subtle point, Hiro.  I think the book is saying that as well as the general case (ie. on those occasions when you saw a dog  (any dog)), there is, when the verb is in the past tense, another possible meaning: you saw a dog, and when you saw that dog, were you frightened?

It's likely that the person speaking will have already been told that his companion saw a dog, so in saying *when you saw a dog*, he is referring to a specific dog.

I'm not sure that there isn't an equivalent way of doing the same in the present tense too.  

X: Every time I go for a walk, I see a dog.
Y: When you see a dog, are you frightened?

Y is surely talking about the dog which X says he sees when he goes for a walk.  He has a specific dog in mind.

I don't think that the book has a good point about the application's being different in the past and in the present.


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> [...]
> It's likely that the person speaking will have already been told that his companion saw a dog, so in saying *when you saw a dog*, he is referring to a specific dog.
> [...]


How is it possible, TT? Could you or anyone else conjure up any longer dialog that would help us understand it? This is the first time I have seen that peculiar use of 'a + noun' pointing you out to a specific object/person that has already mentioned.

I edited and made a little correction in my last post.


----------



## HSS

Here's more additional information that, I hope, could help you help me.

This author antecedently discussed the following set of utterances.

[1] I have an old guitar.
[2] I want a _*new*_ guitar.

He explains that in [1] the speaker should know what guitar he/she refers to as 'an old guitar' because it's one of his/her guitars; hence, it's _*specific*_ in his mind, but it's not _*definite*_ because the listeners cannot identify it; thus the sentence uses 'an.' (For a noun to qualify as _*definite*_ the listener should be able to identify it as unique an object/person or objects/people. And according to the author, the word _*specificity*_ used in his book is defined as concreteness with details in the speaker's mind)

Now, in [2] the speaker may or may not be thinking of a specific guitar (So, specific or unspecific by the author's definition), and it's not definite because the listeners cannot identify it as unique (indefinite). Therefore, it takes the indefinite article 'an.'

He herein goes on to say this uncertainty is attributable partly to the group of verbs or verbal phrases, such as 'want,' 'expect,' 'look for,' and 'hope for.'

He then brings about the sentence I asked about: 'When you *saw* a dog, were you frightened?' vis-a-vis 'When you *see* a dog, are you frightened?' in an attempt to explain a relationship between the tense and the specificity (defined by him, as aforementioned).

[3] When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
[4] When you see a dog, are you frightened?

He says "'A  dog' in [3] is the object of the verb 'saw,' in the past tense. And  as  it indicates a specific action of seeing a dog, you could say it is a   locution that is made with a specific dog in mind. The reason the   definite article 'the' is not used is the speaker thinks the listener   does not yet know there is the dog. On the other hand, in [4] with the  verb 'see,' in the present tense, the speaker normally means 'any dog.'  He/she is not thinking of a specific dog."

Now after I have given a lot of thought to the sentence, I think by 'it is a   locution that is made with a specific dog in mind,' he means that --- _*just*_ in the speaker's mind, as in the first possible interpretation of sentence [2] (_may be thinking of a specific guitar_). He is referring to a specific dog while the listener does not know what dog.

Can anyone think of any setting where 'When you saw a dog, _*were*_ you frightened?' could be uttered under the condition I mentioned above? I tried my hardest but I can't seem to come up with one thus far. (In the back of my mind, I'm thinking this shouldn't be this difficult, that I should be missing something vital, as this book is a primer)

Edit: I corrected 'are' back to '_*were*_' in my last paragraph. (And, 'old' guitar should have been '_*new*_')


----------



## Thomas Tompion

HSS said:


> [...]
> Can anyone think of any setting where 'When you saw a dog, are you frightened?' could be uttered under the condition I mentioned above? I tried my hardest but I can't seem to come up with one thus far. (In the back of my mind, I'm thinking this shouldn't be this difficult, that I should be missing something vital, as this book is a primer)


The tenses are inconsistent, Hiro.

I think you need either* when you see, are you...?*, or* when you saw, were you...?*


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> The tenses are inconsistent, Hiro.
> 
> I think you need either* when you see, are you...?*, or* when you saw, were you...?*


Oooops, I corrected 'are' back to 'were,' TT


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Hiro,

So your man, if I've understood this right, is saying:

1. When someone says* I saw an old guitar*, they are talking about a particular guitar, but say *a guitar* rather than *the guitar*, because this guitar isn't known to the listeners.
2.  When someone says *I want an old guitar*, they are probably not talking about a particular guitar.

3.  When someone says* I see an old guitar*, they are not talking about a particular guitar.

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with 1. and 2. here, but not with 3.  I think the speaker may have a particular guitar in mind both when he says *I saw an old guitar* and when he says *I see an old guitar*.


----------



## HSS

Hullo, Thomas.

Thanks!

Gee, I should have been more careful. It's a 'new' guitar, not an 'old' guitar. I found the mistake in post 13.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Hiro,
> 
> So your man, if I've understood this right, is saying:
> 
> 1. When someone says* I saw an old guitar*, they are talking about a particular guitar, but say *a guitar* rather than *the guitar*, because this guitar isn't known to the listeners.
> 2.  When someone says *I want a new guitar*, they are probably not talking about a particular guitar.
> 
> 3.  When someone says* I see an old guitar*, they are not talking about a particular guitar.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm quite happy with 1. and 2. here, but not with 3.  I think the speaker may have a particular guitar in mind both when he says *I saw an old guitar* and when he says *I see an old guitar*.



_1. When someone says* I saw an old guitar*, they are talking about a particular guitar, but say *a guitar* rather than *the guitar*, because this guitar isn't known to the listeners.
_I guess you meant 'I have,' TT. ([1])

_2.  When someone says *I want a new guitar*, they are probably not talking about a particular guitar.
_But possibly about a particular guitar as well, aren't they, if they have that in mind when talking.?

_3.  When someone says* I see an old guitar*, they are not talking about a particular guitar.
_I guess you meant 'I saw a dog.' ([3])


----------



## nodnol

*When you saw a dog, were you frightened? *Whether or not this is the correct answer, the amount of difficulty this sentence has caused makes me think that this part of the book was not well thought-out and not well explained. Also, some of the key information is only given in post #10. '*The reason the   definite article 'the' is not used is the speaker thinks the listener   does not yet know there is the dog''.* 

I'd offer this scenario: The answer to the question 'were you frightened...' could be 'What dog? I didn't see any dog'; the purpose of the question is to find out first if the person saw a dog, and if they didn't, to let them know that there is a dog. It would be like saying: 'It must have been a surprise for you to see a dog!' which would to be a much more natural sentence, as would, arguably, 'when you saw the dog, were you frightened?' (the difference is that in this last sentence, the speaker doesn't put himself or herself in the listener's position to the same degree), or the more natural 'Have you seen the dog yet? Did it frighten you?'


----------



## HSS

nodnol said:


> *When you saw a dog, were you frightened? *Whether or not this is the correct answer, the amount of difficulty this sentence has caused makes me think that this part of the book was not well thought-out and not well explained. Also, some of the key information is only given in post #10. '*The reason the   definite article 'the' is not used is the speaker thinks the listener   does not yet know there is the dog''.*
> 
> I'd offer this scenario: The answer to the question 'were you frightened...' could be 'What dog? I didn't see any dog'; the purpose of the question is to find out first if the person saw a dog, and if they didn't, to let them know that there is a dog. It would be like saying: 'It must have been a surprise for you to see a dog!' which would to be a much more natural sentence, as would, arguably, 'when you saw the dog, were you frightened?' (the difference is that in this last sentence, the speaker doesn't put himself or herself in the listener's position to the same degree), or the more natural 'Have you seen the dog yet? Did it frighten you?'


Hi, Nodnol.

This sounds very much like it. So it could very well be rhetorical. For me to understand you more precisely, would you be so good as to explain what you mean by to?

_It would be like saying: 'It must have been a surprise for you to see a  dog!' which would to be a much more natural sentence, as would,  arguably, 'when you saw the dog, were you frightened?' (the difference  is that in this last sentence, the speaker doesn't put himself or  herself in the listener's position to the same degree), or the more  natural 'Have you seen the dog yet? Did it frighten you?_


----------



## Myridon

Or to go in another direction:
I have just shown you a deck of flash cards.  The cards have pictures of various animals on them.  Several of the cards have dogs on them.
When you saw a dog, were you frightened?  A dog = any of the dogs in the deck - one of the several known dogs in the deck, but not a particular one.


----------



## JulianStuart

Myridon said:


> Or to go in another direction:
> I have just shown you a deck of flash cards.  The cards have pictures of various animals on them.  Several of the cards have dogs on them.
> When you saw a dog, were you frightened?  A dog = any of the dogs in the deck - one of the several known dogs in the deck, but not a particular one.


  Good explanation (since the original sentence was not placed in any context in the grammar book, we need to find likely ones!).
If there was only one dog in the deck of cards, you would have asked "When you saw the dog, were you frightened?"  In this setting, the "when" has the meaning of "each time".  "When I ate a hot dog I got sick to my stomach" describes a situation that happened more than once and all occurrences happened in the past, and you are describing the repeated consequence.


----------



## nodnol

> For me to understand you more precisely, would you be so good as to explain what you mean by to?



Sorry, that was a mistake.



> Or to go in another direction:
> I have just shown you a deck of flash cards.  The cards have pictures of  various animals on them.  Several of the cards have dogs on them.
> When you saw a dog, were you frightened?  A dog = any of the dogs in the  deck - one of the several known dogs in the deck, but not a particular  one.



To my mind, if there was only one dog in the pack, you could still say ''When you saw a dog, were you frightened?'' to someone who has just looked at the cards, one by one, for the very first time. ed: because before they turned a card over and saw a dog, they didn't know that there was a dogs in the set of cards, (...like in the scenario I described in my earlier post) and after they had turned over the card and seen the dog, they still did not know that it was the only dog in the set. 

So in this scenario, when the question is asked, both people know that there is only one dog, but the effect of saying 'a dog' not 'the dog' is like 'zooming in' even more closely on the moment that the person saw the dog.


----------



## PaulQ

HSS said:


> Hi, alastair. Hi, Teddy.
> 
> The sentence is from a book with no further context, except the author says _*in the speaker's mind*_, the dog in question is _*specific*_, but that dog is *not existent in the listener's mind*. Is something like that possible with 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' ???


The question should be, "When*ever* you saw a dog, were you frightened?"

Whenever = at any time.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, HSS.

You write:

_"The sentence is from a book with no further context, except the author says *in the speaker's mind*, the dog in question is *specific*, but that dog is *not existent in the listener's mind*." 

_I take this to mean that the author of the book says that the speaker is thinking of a specific dog, while the listener is not thinking of any dog — i.e., he is not expecting any question about any animal/anything in particular. Am I correct? 

Would it be too much work for you to copy for us the whole chunk — all of the original lines — from the text?

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We had most of it in #13, Giorgio.


----------



## HSS

I think I found the book the author must have based this part of his writing on. It's 'Roots of Language' by Derek Bickerton. And the following is excerpted from a book that also refers to the same book. (Because of the 4-line limitation, I excluded the sentences in discussion out of the quote. I also altered the sentence numbers to (a) and (b) so they match with the letters below.

Could this be any help? What is 'a punctual event'???

(a) When you see a dog, are you frightened? [non-specific]
(b) When you saw a dog, were you frightened? [specific]



> In (a) _a dog_ denotes a type of individual, whilst _a dog_ in (b) has a presupposition of existence. Note, however, that _a dog_ can be understood as non-specific if the past tense is taken as habitual in the past, but it is [+specific] in a reading, describing a punctual event.
> 
> The non-specific and specific readings correspond to what Quine (1960) termed ‘opaque’ and ‘transparent’ readings, and what Fodor & Sag (1982) define as an ‘existential’ (quantificational) and a ‘referential’ reading, respectively. A specific noun phrase refers to a particular individual, while a non-specific noun phrase simply denotes a class of objects, and by extension may refer to any individual fitting the description denoted by the NP. ("Complex Processes in New Languages" by Enoch O. Aboh and Norval Smith)



Sorry I couldn't find the pages of 'Roots of Language' itself.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

This makes much more sense, Hiro.

I was arguing earlier that whether the verb was in the present or the past, *a dog* could be non-specific - something which your new book agrees is possible when "the past tense is taken as habitual in the past".  That covers my previous worries and suggests that the grammar book has either misunderstood the point, or come to its own, false, conclusion.

I think* a punctual event *means something which happens at a point in time, in this case in the past.


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> This makes much more sense, Hiro.
> 
> I was arguing earlier that whether the verb was in the present or the past, *a dog* could be non-specific - something which your new book agrees is possible when "the past tense is taken as habitual in the past".  That covers my previous worries and suggests that the grammar book has either misunderstood the point, or come to its own, false, conclusion.


Yes, this point is very comprehensible, TT.



Thomas Tompion said:


> I think* a punctual event *means something which happens at a point in time, in this case in the past.


The thing that I nonetheless don't understand is why the article in "When you saw a dog, were you frightened?" is 'a,' not 'the.' If the listener saw a dog at one particular time in the past, he/she could uniquely identify it. (Or, couldn't he/she?) Then, it should be 'the.' But the Japanese author says as *the speaker thinks* the dog is not yet existent in the listener's mind, the indefinite article 'a' is used??? What is this supposed to mean???


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Try it this way, Hiro.

Mr A says* I saw a dog every morning when I went to the park.
*
Now this might mean that each time he went he saw at least one dog; he may not be talking about a specific dog.  In this case he could not go on to say *The dog was brown*.

It might on the other hand mean that each time he saw the same dog, a specific dog.  In this second case he could go on to say *The dog was brown**.*


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> Try it this way, Hiro.
> 
> Mr A says* I saw a dog every morning when I went to the park.
> *
> Now this might mean that each time he went he saw at least one dog; he may not be talking about a specific dog.  In this case he could not go on to say *The dog was brown*.
> 
> It might on the other hand mean that each time he saw the same dog, a specific dog.  In this second case he could go on to say *The dog was brown**.*


Good morning, TT.

But that's habitual, isn't it? I'm talking about one particular incident, a punctual event as the other author puts it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Fine.  Suppose that he says *when I went this morning to the park, I saw a dog*.  He's surely talking about a specific dog - the dog he saw this morning when he went to the park - so he can go on to say *The dog was brown*.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, HSS.

"... the author says that _*in the speaker's mind*_ the dog in question is _*specific*_, but that that dog is *not existent in the listener's mind*."

This means that, according to the author, the person asking "When you saw a dog, were you frightened?" knows that his interlocutor did see a dog. So far so good.
It also means that the interlocutor (the person who, in the speaker's mind, did see the/a dog) knows nothing about it. 
This is not so good.
How can I ask you about your feelings for a certain lady if you never told me you *are* dating one?

GS


----------



## Thomas Tompion

You've lost me, Giorgio.

The conversation, as I see it, goes something like this:

A: *I saw a dog this morning* - (the dog is specific in A's mind, but not in B's, so A says *a dog*).

B: *When you saw a dog, were you frightened?* - (the dog could now be specific in B's mind - he could have said *When you saw the dog* - to stress that he means the dog that A says he saw; however B prefers to say *a dog*, for two reasons: 1. to mirror A's formula; 2. to keep this dog non-specific - he's asking A about his reactions to seeing a dog, not about those to seeing this dog (with its sharp teeth and glaring eyes)).

Maybe we are agreeing.  I'm not sure.


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> You've lost me, Giorgio.
> 
> The conversation, as I see it, goes something like this:
> 
> A: *I saw a dog this morning* - (the dog is specific in A's mind, but not in B's, so A says *a dog*).
> 
> B: *When you saw a dog, were you frightened?* - (the dog could now be specific in B's mind - he could have said *When you saw the dog* - to stress that he means the dog that A says he saw; however B prefers to say *a dog*, for two reasons: 1. to mirror A's formula; 2. to keep this dog non-specific - he's asking A about his reactions to seeing a dog, not about those to seeing this dog (with its sharp teeth and glaring eyes)).
> 
> Maybe we are agreeing.  I'm not sure.


Hi, Thomas.

2. to keep this dog non-specific
As long as you're referring to a certain dog, even though you don't know any attribute of the dog, the 'a dog' is still specific, isn't it? So in this discourse, the first would be B's intention, I think, TT.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

HSS said:


> Hi, Thomas.
> 
> 2. to keep this dog non-specific
> As long as you're referring to a certain dog, even though you don't know any attribute of the dog, the 'a dog' is still specific, isn't it? So in this discourse, the first would be B's intention, I think, TT.


I don't think it is likely to be specific.

If B wanted to know how A reacted to seeing this specific dog, he'd be likely to say *the dog* or *this dog*, I think.

I wasn't clear which "the first" was, Hiro.  The first what?


----------



## HSS

Hello, TT.

You're talking about the definiteness in English grammar, I think. I think, as you said, B is mirroring A's utterance in your dialog (the first reason). From what I learned, this 'a dog' is indefinite-specific. If you say 'the dog' here, then the 'the dog' is definite-specific.

Please forgive me if I'm telling you the wrong information, TT.


----------



## Myridon

Thomas Tompion said:


> Mr A says* I saw a dog every morning when I went to the park.*





HSS said:


> But that's habitual, isn't it?


It's a report of multiple past occurrences.  I went to the park on five mornings and saw a dog each time.  Multiple punctual events as the author puts it. 
"I see a dog every morning when I go to the park."  is habitual.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

HSS said:


> Hello, TT.
> 
> You're talking about the definiteness in English grammar, I think. I think, as you said, B is mirroring A's utterance in your dialog (the first reason). From what I learned, this 'a dog' is indefinite-specific. If you say 'the dog' here, then the 'the dog' is definite-specific.
> 
> Please forgive me if I'm telling you the wrong information, TT.


The problem, Hiro, is just that I'm not sure what you mean by indefinite-specific.

In my imagined conversation, B could either say _When you saw the dog..._ or _When you saw a dog..._

I was imagining circumstances where B might use the second formula, say _*a* dog_ - to mean any old dog - as opposed to _*a* dog_ - to mean this dog, the dog you saw this morning.

I thought that was what you were interested in, maybe mistakenly.


----------



## PaulQ

Isn't the solution to say "When*ever* you saw *any *dog, were you frightened?" *a* = any if *a* = "one from many."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We perhaps need to remember that the 'problem' is to find circumstances in which one might say *When you saw a dog were you frightened*?


----------



## bennymix

Hi Thomas, I don't find this very plausible:

B prefers to say *a dog*, for two reasons: 1. to mirror A's formula; 2. to keep this dog non-specific - he's asking A about his reactions to seeing a dog, not about those to seeing this dog (with its sharp teeth and glaring eyes)).


First of all, mirroring would not apply here, unless it would be in quotes,

B1:  "OK, when you 'saw a dog', were you frightened?"

Routinely, we do not mirror, as in A: "I saw a huge dog."  B:  "What was the dog's breed?"

As to the generalization B might wonder about, surely he'd say something like

B2: "So when you see a dog, you get frightened?"   OR
B3: "So when you've seen dogs, you were frightened?"

===

As to your restatement of the problem:

TT: We perhaps need to remember that the 'problem' is to find circumstances in which one might say *When you saw a dog were you frightened*?                 

--
Perhaps it needs to be not so immediate as A talking to B.

A is a student and he's written a little autobiography, for his teacher, B.
In the written story, it says,  "I saw a dog.  I ran."

Now, having read this, the teacher is talking to A, and inquires,
"So when you saw a dog, were you frightened?"  (thinking he might do well to mention fear).

If B wonders as to a general pattern, he'd say, however, something like B2, I think.


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> A: *I saw a dog this morning* - (the dog is specific in A's mind, but not in B's, so A says *a dog*).
> 
> B: *When you saw a dog, were you frightened?*





HSS said:


> From what I learned, this 'a dog' is indefinite-specific. If you say 'the dog' here, then the 'the dog' is definite-specific.





Thomas Tompion said:


> The problem, Hiro, is just that I'm not sure what you mean by indefinite-specific.


Hi, TT.

Definite is antonymous to indefinite whereas specific is to generic.

_I bought a book yesterday._

This 'a book' is specific because in this the speaker only bought one _certain_ book, but it is indefinite because the listeners could not identify the book with 'the book.'

By the same token, the 'a dog' in your dialog is specific and indefinite. (Correct me if I'm wrong, TT. By 'when you saw a dog,' you mean one particular incident, don't you?)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hiro,

I'm not sure that this _definite/indefinite - specific/generic_ nomenclature is helping.  I find it obfuscates the issues rather than clarifying them.

I'm clearer when you talk about the speaker having a specific dog in mind, but knowing also that his listener does not, and therefore saying* I saw a dog yesterday*.

Having thus rendered the dog specific to his listener, he can go on to say *The* (or *this*, or* that*) *dog was brown*.  He can do this because the listener would take him to be talking now about a specific dog - the dog he saw yesterday.

Let's keep books out of this.

I worry that we are going round in circles.

I've no idea what still is puzzling you.


----------



## HSS

Hi, TT.

Let me take time out and ponder on this. Yes, I just wanted to know any plausible circumstance where the sentence could be stated. But there seem to be a few other things related to it that I think I have to work out. I'll be right back.

As always, thanks for your tremendous help, TT.


----------



## HSS

HSS said:


> Hi, TT.
> 
> Let me take time out and ponder on this. Yes, I just wanted to know any  plausible circumstance where the sentence could be stated. But there  seem to be a few other things related to it that I think I have to work  out. I'll be right back.
> 
> As always, thanks for your tremendous help, TT.



Hi, I'm back with a much clearer head, TT. I was tuckered out last night after a long drive back home, but I'm wired now.

Here's some of my earlier posts:

[my question]


HSS said:


> When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
> (A grammar book in Japan)
> 
> I've been thinking of this sentence for the last hour, trying to come up  with a possible setting where it could be uttered. 'When' is used;  therefore, you are positive the encounter occurred for sure. Doesn't  that automatically bring about 'the' as you know saying this will most  probably bring back the memory to your listener, and he/she can identify  the dog if he/she has possibly forgotten.
> 
> Could anyone please show me an example in which this is said? (Please  exclude the ones where this is used to express his/her past  habit)



[additional information from the book]


HSS said:


> Here's more additional information that, I hope, could help you help me.
> 
> This author antecedently discussed the following set of utterances.
> 
> [1] I have an old guitar.
> [2] I want a new guitar.
> 
> He explains that in [1] the speaker should know what guitar he/she  refers to as 'an old guitar' because it's one of his/her guitars; hence,  it's _*specific*_ in his mind, but it's not _*definite*_ because the listeners cannot identify it; thus the sentence uses 'an.' (For a noun to qualify as _*definite*_ the listener should be able to identify it as unique an object/person or objects/people. And according to the author, the word _*specificity*_ used in his book is defined as concreteness with details one entity that is not replaced with another (others) in the speaker's mind)
> 
> Now, in [2] the speaker may or may not be thinking of a specific guitar  (So, specific or unspecific by the author's definition), and it's not  definite because the listeners cannot identify it as unique  (indefinite). Therefore, it takes the indefinite article 'an.'
> 
> He herein goes on to say this uncertainty is attributable partly to the  group of verbs or verbal phrases, such as 'want,' 'expect,' 'look for,'  and 'hope for.'
> 
> He then brings about the sentence I asked about: 'When you *saw* a dog, were you frightened?' vis-a-vis 'When you *see*  a dog, are you frightened?' in an attempt to explain a relationship  between the tense and the specificity (defined by him, as  aforementioned).
> 
> _*[3] When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
> [4] When you see a dog, are you frightened?
> *_
> *He says "'A  dog' in [3] is the object of the verb 'saw,' in the past  tense. And  as  it indicates a specific action of seeing a dog, you  could say it is a   locution that is made with a specific dog in mind.  The reason the   definite article 'the' is not used is the speaker  thinks the listener   does not yet know there is the dog. On the other  hand, in [4] with the  verb 'see,' in the present tense, the speaker  normally means 'any dog.'  He/she is not thinking of a specific dog."
> *
> Now after I have given a lot of thought to the sentence, I think by 'it  is a   locution that is made with a specific dog in mind,' he means that  --- _*just*_ in the speaker's mind, as in the first possible interpretation of sentence [2] (_may be thinking of a specific guitar_). He is referring to a specific dog while the listener does not know what dog.
> 
> Can anyone think of any setting where 'When you saw a dog, were you  frightened?' could be uttered under the condition I mentioned above? I  tried my hardest but I can't seem to come up with one thus far. (In the  back of my mind, I'm thinking this shouldn't be this difficult, that I  should be missing something vital, as this book is a primer)



[additional information from another book]


HSS said:


> I think I found the book the author must have based  this part of his writing on. It's 'Roots of Language' by Derek  Bickerton. And the following is excerpted from a book that also refers  to the same book. (Because of the 4-line limitation, I excluded the  sentences in discussion out of the quote. I also altered the sentence  numbers to (a) and (b) so they match with the letters below.
> 
> Could this be any help? What is 'a punctual event'???
> 
> (a) When you see a dog, are you frightened? [non-specific]
> (b) When you saw a dog, were you frightened? [specific]
> 
> 
> 
> In (a) _a dog_ denotes a type of individual, whilst _a dog_ in (b) has a presupposition of existence. Note, however, that _a dog_  can be understood as non-specific if the past tense is taken as  habitual in the past, but it is [+specific] in a reading, describing a punctual event.
> 
> The non-specific and specific readings correspond to what Quine (1960)  termed ‘opaque’ and ‘transparent’ readings, and what Fodor & Sag  (1982) define as an ‘existential’ (quantificational) and a ‘referential’  reading, respectively. A specific noun phrase refers to a particular  individual, while a non-specific noun phrase simply denotes a class of  objects, and by extension may refer to any individual fitting the  description denoted by the NP. ("Complex Processes in New Languages" by  Enoch O. Aboh and Norval Smith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I couldn't find the pages of 'Roots of Language' itself.
Click to expand...


[your suggestion]


Thomas Tompion said:


> You've lost me, Giorgio.
> 
> The conversation, as I see it, goes something like this:
> 
> A: *I saw a dog this morning* - (the dog is specific in A's mind, but not in B's, so A says *a dog*).
> 
> B: *When you saw a dog, were you frightened?* - (the dog could now be specific in B's mind - he could have said *When you saw the dog* - to stress that he means the dog that A says he saw; however B prefers to say *a dog*, for two reasons: 1. to mirror A's formula; 2. to keep this dog non-specific - he's asking A about his reactions to seeing a dog, not about those to seeing this dog (with its sharp teeth and glaring eyes)).
> 
> Maybe we are agreeing.  I'm not sure.



Thomas, your dialog sounds plausible to me. (I should have mentioned this in the first place as a plausible circumstance is what I asked the forum for).
Upon seeing this post, I went on a tangent a bit and said both 'a dog's in B's mind are [+specific][-definite] (=specific but indefinite), not [-specific][-definite]. The first 'a dog' is one and only (not generic) and A believes B cannot identify it through a mutually shared reference frame (not definite). The second 'a dog' is again one and only and B prefers to sound as if he/she believed A couldn't identify it through a mutually shared reference frame. For all this, TT, this sounds very good!

The following is an excerpt that was used in [additional information from the book] . (It is included above in this post)

_*[3] When you saw a dog, were you frightened?
[4] When you see a dog, are you frightened?

*_*He says "'A  dog' in [3] is the object of the verb 'saw,' in the past  tense. And  as  it indicates a specific action of seeing a dog, you  could say it is a   locution that is made with a specific dog in mind.  The reason the   definite article 'the' is not used is the speaker  thinks the listener   does not yet know there is the dog. On the other  hand, in [4] with the  verb 'see,' in the present tense, the speaker  normally means 'any dog.'  He/she is not thinking of a specific dog."*


> By the underlined statement, I guess, the author wanted to convey that the reason 'the' is not used is the speaker believes the listener cannot identify the dog. The speaker thinks listener doesn't know yet there is the dog = The speaker thinks the dog is not yet existent in the listener's mind = The speaker doesn't think the listener can identify the dog through a mutually shared reference frame = The dog is not definite. (I figure the first, and the second (my interpretation) is a grammatical way of putting it)
> *Edit: Now that I've given much more thought to the statement, I'm not sure if this is true. I now guess it's simply just what it says: the speaker thinks the listener does not yet know there is the dog.*


Here is my proposal:
A: My class held an animal show the other day. Some of us brought our pets into the class. Just so we wouldn’t bring the same animals in, we had told our class what we were going to show before the day.
B: Really? When you saw *a dog*, were you frightened? I’m sure someone brought in a dog.
A: Why did you ask me that?
B: Because I heard you were cynophobic.

*a dog*
[-definite]: The speaker believes the listener cannot identify the dog through the same reference frame as his/hers. He/she feels the frame is very weak here.
[+specific]: The speaker regards the dog ‘specific’ because he/she refers to one specific dog (although he/she cannot tell you anything more than just ‘a dog’). He/she knows there was only one dog involved. No other dog was involved. Here the word ‘specific’ does not mean the speaker can tell the details or attributes of the dog. It is not replaceable to mean ‘generic.’


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Hiro,

I hate to say this, but it helps if you keep your posts short; then we can concentrate on one problem at a time.  I suspect that you are searching for an all-embracing answer, and that many of the rest of us prefer to look at small parts of a grammatical issue at a time.

You've also used _-definite_ and _+specific_ in ways which are unclear to me.  It's easier if you talk about what people know and don't know here, I suspect, rather than using codes which are unfamiliar to us, or at least to me.

You seem to me to have a good understanding of the issues.

  I can't work out what you are still asking.

What do you want help with?


----------



## HSS

Good morning, Thomas.

I now know at least one example where the sentence can be used. That answered my request. Thanks.

Additionally ... (I will make my post shorter and concise)

Does this 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' sound okay?

A: My class held an animal show the other day. Some of us brought our  pets into the class. Just so we wouldn’t bring the same animals in, we  had told our class what we were going to show before the day.
B: Really? When you saw *a dog*, were you frightened? I’m sure someone brought in a dog.
A: Why did you ask me that?
B: Because I heard you were cynophobic.

Hiro


----------



## Thomas Tompion

That's fine, Hiro.

In that case we would say _*a *dog_ initially, because we were not talking about a particular dog yet.  Once we've started talking about a dog brought in by a particular student, we'd say _*the* dog_, ie. the dog brought in by that particular student.  We have a point of reference for identifying which dog we are talking about.

One tiny point, for the future.  When you say





> Does this 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' sound okay?



It would probably be clearer to say _Could one say 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' in the following circumstances?_


----------



## HSS

Thomas Tompion said:


> That's fine, Hiro.
> 
> In that case we would say _*a *dog_ initially, because we were not talking about a particular dog yet.  Once we've started talking about a dog brought in by a particular student, we'd say _*the* dog_, ie. the dog brought in by that particular student.  We have a point of reference for identifying which dog we are talking about.
> 
> One tiny point, for the future.  When you say
> 
> It would probably be clearer to say _Could one say 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' in the following circumstances?_


_Could one say 'When you saw a dog, were you frightened?' in the following circumstances?_

Yes, that's what I intended to ask, TT.

So, the dialog sounds okay to you, doesn't it? I wouldn't need to alter any in that, would I?

Thanks, TT.

Hiro


----------



## HSS

Myridon said:


> It's a report of multiple past occurrences.  I went to the park on five mornings and saw a dog each time.  Multiple punctual events as the author puts it.
> "I see a dog every morning when I go to the park."  is habitual.


Hi, Myridon.

Then how would you express the past habitual? "When you would see a dog, were you frightened?"

(Actually, I think I should set up a new thread for this. I will now)


----------

