# Tom denied killing the goat



## coolieinblue

Hi everybody

Mary :  Tom denied killing the goat.

Mary didn't have any doubt about his killing the goat when she said the above?


My guess : No

She was saying that after she found it to be true.

Thank you in advance


----------



## Valvs

I think you are reading too much into Mary's statement; it doesn't tell us anything at all about what she believes or believed. She just reports the fact that Tom denied killing the goat, that's all.


----------



## LilithE

I agree with Valvs. How could we know what Mary thinks?! As far as I am concerned Mary could be the one who killed that goat and now she is trying to accuse Tom.


----------



## Parla

coolieinblue said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> Mary :  Tom denied killing the goat.
> 
> Mary didn't have any doubt about his killing the goat when she said the above?
> 
> My guess : No
> 
> She was saying that after she found it to be true.



Your context is unclear: She said that after she found *what* to be true? She found that Tom had actually killed the goat? Or she found that Tom's denial was true? (That is, Tom had not killed the goat.)

In either case, Mary's statement about Tom's denial tells us nothing about Mary's beliefs; she is simply reporting what Tom said.


----------



## coolieinblue

Mark refused to admit killing the goat.

Does this sound different from the orginal?


----------



## entangledbank

As others have said, 'deny' carries no attitude towards truth. But some verbs can:

Mary: 'Tom claimed he hadn't killed the goat.' [Mary is doubtful: the word 'claim' suggests she thinks he did do it. But she might just be reporting it neutrally.]

Is this the kind of thing you are thinking of?

_Edit._ Posted before seeing your latest reply. There are some other verbs that do imply truth. 'Realize', 'regret', 'know', and 'discover' do, though 'admit' doesn't. (You can admit/confess to killing the goat but be lying - you didn't really kill it.) If Mark regrets killing the goat, then Mark did kill it. If John realizes/discovers/knows that Bill killed it, then Bill did kill it.


----------



## coolieinblue

Thank you all for your repy.

I've believed that a gerund refers to something present or true.


----------



## coolieinblue

If the 'denied' is used just to report somthing, Can I rephrase the sentence like this using *said*?

Tom said not killing the goat. - This must be grammatically incorrect.

(Truth might be what you believe)


----------



## Copyright

coolieinblue said:


> If the 'denied' is used just to report somthing, Can I rephrase the sentence like this using *said*?
> 
> Tom said not killing the goat. - This must be grammatically incorrect.
> 
> (Truth might be what you believe)



I'm confused. You ask if you can rephrase the sentence and then you say it must be grammatically incorrect (which it is).

What would you like to know?


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> Can I rephrase the sentence like this using *said*?


No you can't, coolieinblue. _Deny_ and _admit_ can be followed by a gerund; _say_ can't:

_He denied killing the goat_
_He admitted killing the goat_
_He said killing the goat_
_He said not killing the goat_

EDIT: Sorry Copyright, I see you'd asked coolieinblue for clarification.


----------



## coolieinblue

Copyright and Loob, very sorry

I just meant to say *deny* is indicating more than *report or say.*


----------



## sound shift

coolieinblue said:


> I just meant to say *deny* is indicating more than *report or say.*


That can be the case, coolieinblue, but it is not necessarily the case:-

- _You killed the goat.
- No, I didn't.
_Here there is a denial in response to an accusation. I denied killing the goat.

- _Do you know who killed the goat?
- I don't. It wasn't me.
_Here there is a denial but no accusation. Nevertheless, we can still say that I denied killing the goat.


----------



## coolieinblue

sound shift, thak you for providing the contexts

By the way, do you often use "deny" when you are not assured whether someone did something? 

Thank you in advance


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> By the way, do you often use "deny" when you are not assured whether someone did something?


As has been said before, we use "deny" to refer to what the person said.  It doesn't matter whether we believe the person or not: that's irrelevant.


----------



## owlman5

coolieinblue said:


> sound shift, thak you for providing the contexts
> 
> By the way, do you often use "deny" when you are not assured whether someone did something?
> 
> Thank you in advance


In certain contexts, Coolie, you sure could use "deny" in a situation that you are doubtful about:

Jim denied eating all the cookies, but I'm not sure I believe him. 

Jim denies it, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the statement.  If Jim is usually honest, then he probably didn't eat all the cookies.  If Jim lies all the time, then he probably ate them and is just lying when he denies it.


----------



## coolieinblue

Thank you, Loob.
Hi owlman5, thank you for the explantion.
you sure could use "deny" in a situation that* you are doubtful about.*


----------



## owlman5

Absolutely, Coolie.  Just because you say that somebody denied something doesn't mean that you believe him.  All it tells us is that somebody said that he didn't do something.  Using "deny" in no way indicates belief or doubt about the statement.  It is a neutral verb that tells us what somebody did.


----------



## coolieinblue

owlman5

I understand. I wanted to check out that a gerund is always used when something is already on the speaker's mind.

I appreciate your help.


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> I wanted to check out that a gerund is always used when something is already on the speaker's mind.


Coolieinblue, I don't understand your comment. 

It's also possible to say "he denied that he had done it", with no difference in meaning from a sentence with a gerund.


----------



## coolieinblue

Loob, sorry for the late response.

Your sentence sounds like part of story telling while the original is backgrounding what is going to be said next, probably your judgement or feeling.


----------



## Loob

I'm not sure why the the two versions feel so different to you, coolieinblue - they don't to me.


----------



## LilithE

coolieinblue said:


> Loob, sorry for the late response.
> 
> Your sentence sounds like part of story telling while the original is  backgrounding what is going to be said next, probably your judgement or  feeling.


 
 Now I don't understand the comment because that is exactly how your  first post sounded to me - like a fragmment of a story which doesn't  really tell us anything about Tom or Mary or to what degree their words  could be trustworthy. There are some other aspects that are more  important than a choice of words in storytelling. First person narrators  are normally consireded to be unreliable ones. But even an extract from  a story told in the third person wouldn't make a reader accept a piece  of information as undeniable truth. If I would read a line _Mary found  out that Tom had killed her goat_ I might believe that information in  that moment. But only might, because there is always a possibility I  would read after several chapters _Mary had been so wrong. An evidence of Tom's innocence had been in front of her but she had unconsciously chosen to ignore it. _
I don't think that gerund by itself can tell us much about someone's beliefs or thoughts. We always need a bit wider context.


----------



## coolieinblue

Hello Loob

*Mary :Tom denied Killing the goat.*
Mary :
1. He is always telling a lie.
2. Nobody but his Mom would believe he is innocent.
3. I am thinking about killing his dog.
4. What on earth were you doing when he was beating my goat?
5. What are you going to do about this?

Does any of those above go with your version?

*Tom denied he had killed the goat.*


----------



## Cagey

Like the others, I see no difference between the two versions you have given us.

This assumption is not correct: _The gerund always refers to what the speaker believes is true_.  

Where did you see this?  Perhaps it is true of the construction with a particular verb, but it is not true of _deny_, nor of verbs in general.

In the statement "_Tom denied that_ ...." there is only one thing that we know is true, or that we know the speaker wants us to believe is true.  This is the fact that Tom _said_ he didn't do it.   The sentence itself doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsity of what Tom said.


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> Hello Loob
> 
> *Mary :Tom denied Killing the goat.*
> Mary :
> 1. He is always telling a lie.
> 2. Nobody but his Mom would believe he is innocent.
> 3. I am thinking about killing his dog.
> 4. What on earth were you doing when he was beating my goat?
> 5. What are you going to do about this?
> 
> Does any of those above go with your version?
> 
> *Tom denied he had killed the goat.*


Coolieinblue, your sentences 1 to 5 have exactly the same relevance to *Tom denied he had killed the goat* as they do to* Tom denied killing the goat.*

As everyone is telling you, there is no difference in meaning between the two *"Tom denied..."* sentences.


----------



## coolieinblue

Hi Cagey

I see what you mean.

I remeber I said two things :
1. A Gerund always refers to something present *or* true.
2. The speaker was saying that after she* found* it to be true.

I thought that once you *find* something to be true, it is *belived* to be true by you.


----------



## Cagey

Yes, after you find something to be true, you believe it.  But that is separate information, and must be given separately. Both of the proposed sentences work in this case.  
_Tom denied killing the goat._  Mary found what Tom had said to be true.
_
Tom denied he had killed the goat._  Mary found what Tom had said to be true.​  (This suggests that Mary did some kind of investigation into the matter and found evidence that supported Tom's denial.)


----------



## coolieinblue

Loob, I've never said there is difference in the meaning between the two.
I just felt the original is containing the speaker's belief that something is the case.

Cagey, I didn't expect this digression.  I am wondering if I did something wrong.


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> Loob, I've never said there is difference in the meaning between the two.
> I just felt the original is containing the speaker's belief that something is the case.


Neither the original ("Tom denied killing the goat") nor the revised version ("Tom denied that he had killed the goat") contains any indication that the speaker believed Tom - or, indeed, disbelieved him.


----------



## Imber Ranae

coolieinblue said:


> Hi Cagey
> 
> I see what you mean.
> 
> I remeber I said two things :
> 1. A Gerund always refers to something present *or* true.
> 2. The speaker was saying that after she* found* it to be true.
> 
> I thought that once you *find* something to be true, it is *belived* to be true by you.



Just to be clear: your first assertion is 100% incorrect. The gerund is not semantically confined to statements that are true or to statements about a present condition. It's generally timeless unless a time is specified or contextually obvious.


----------



## coolieinblue

Loob, you are right. But I think my arguemet is reasonable as well in that a speaker often says something to suggest something that is already present in her mind or introduce what she intends to say next.

Thank you for your help.


----------



## coolieinblue

Hi Imber Ranae,

Tom denied killing the goat.

I belive that questioning to Tom had been present.


----------



## JamesM

coolieinblue said:


> Loob, you are right. But I think my arguemet is reasonable as well in that a speaker often says something to suggest something that is already present in her mind or introduce what she intends to say next.
> 
> Thank you for your help.


 
Lisa enjoys swimming.  
Linda enjoys talking to her invisible friend.

I don't see why you would think that the gerund signals something that is true or present.  Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coolieinblue said:


> Hi Imber Ranae,
> 
> Tom denied killing the goat.
> 
> I belive that questioning to Tom had been present.


You can deny doing things which you have not been accused of doing.  Zola said memorably, and I occasionally remind my neighbour (in French) of his words, _He who apologizes is hinting at his own guilt_.

Coolieinblue, I don't fully understand how, in the face of all this explanation to the contrary, you can continue to maintain that denying is like knowing, and remembering and realizing and discovering, a word which guarantees the truth of what is known, remembered, realized, or discovered.

It's, in the strict sense of _know_, a nonsense to say_ I knew that I killed her, but I didn't kill her._

It makes sense to say _I denied that I killed her, but I did kill her._

It can also make sense to say_ I denied that I killed her, and I didn't kill her._


----------



## coolieinblue

JamesM, thank you for your reply





JamesM said:


> Lisa enjoys swimming.
> Linda enjoys talking to her invisible friend.


*Linda avoided swimming that night although she had enjoyed swimming at night everyday.*
Swimming at night was her pastime or bad habit, which had been present at that time. 
*Linda couldn't help laughing at the scene.*
The emotion had already had burst out somwhere in her brain.


Thomas Tompion, thank you for your points.

I was wondering if I said somthing contrary to all the explantion. I realize that my first question wasn't set properly and it caused some digression, but I coudn't correct the course because my English wasn't good enough.

I just wanted to know :

1. Whether or not you regard it true that Tom or *somebody else* killed the goat.

2. Whck part of the two below in bolds first occures to you mind, that is, you thnk of first before you say the sentence.

(I added some to the original)
Tom *denied killing* the goat, (but/and I *think he told a lie/didn't tell a lie*)
I mean which was present first in your brain.

I think that after you have decided to tell the latter part, you background it by saying the first part.


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> I just wanted to know :
> 
> 1. Whether or not you regard it true that Tom or *somebody else* killed the goat.


Somebody killed the goat.  It's just that we don't know who.


coolieinblue said:


> 2. Whck part of the two below in bolds first occures to you mind, that is, you thnk of first before you say the sentence.
> 
> Tom *denied killing* the goat, (but/and I *think he told a lie/didn't tell a lie*)
> I mean which was present first in your brain.
> 
> I think that after you have decided to tell the latter part, you background it by saying the first part.


Neither of them comes to mind first.  In fact neither of them comes to mind at all. *Tom denied killing the goat* is just a statement about what Tom said.


----------



## JamesM

I agree with Loob.  

Detective A:  "Where have you been?"
Detective B:  "I've been taking Tom's statement about the incident."
Detective A:  "What did he say?"
Detective B:  "Tom denied killing the goat."

Neither Detective B nor Detective A are indicating Tom's presumed innocence or guilt in this conversation.  Detective B is just stating a fact.


----------



## coolieinblue

Loob, thank you for your involvement.

JamesM, Many thanks for the repoting.

I would say 'Tom denied killing the goat' when I am feeling part of the situation, othewise, I will say "Tom said that he hadn't killed the goat.


----------



## Uriel-

What would using a gerund have to do with belief or disbelief?


----------



## Parla

coolieinblue said:


> Mark refused to admit killing the goat.
> 
> Does this sound different from the orginal?




Yes, you've changed suspects. Now it's *Mark* who's denying his guilt.

What happened to Tom?


----------



## Loob

coolieinblue said:


> I would say 'Tom denied killing the goat' when I am feeling part of the situation, othewise, I will say "Tom said that he hadn't killed the goat.


Coolieinblue, we've told you time after time you're making a false distinction here.  But if you want to make it, feel free.


----------



## timpeac

Parla said:


> Yes, you've changed suspects. Now it's *Mark* who's denying his guilt.
> 
> What happened to Tom?



He was sent to prison for being a baaaaaa-d man!


----------



## madsh33p

coolieinblue said:


> I would say 'Tom denied killing the goat' when I am feeling part of the situation, othewise, I will say "Tom said that he hadn't killed the goat.



You can say that if you want, but there is actually no difference in meaning at all between these two sentences. They mean the same thing, just different expressions.
That is what nearly everyone has been trying to explain.
You may have the impression that they are different, and you are free to use which ever one you want, but there is no actual difference in meaning.

Neither imlpies any feelings, suspicions, doubts, involvement or anything. They are simple statements.


----------



## berndf

Loob said:


> Somebody killed the goat.


Actually we don't even know that. The sentence does not logically imply that the goat is dead nor that Mary believes the goat to be dead.


----------



## panjandrum

Someone must have suggested to Tom that he had killed the goat, or asked if he had killed the goat, or perhaps had accused him, directly, of killing the goat.

Following any of those, Tom might say "I didn't kill the goat."

I can report that statement with either of the sentences:
Tom denied killing the goat.
Tom said he didn't kill the goat.

The only prior condition for these sentences is the suggestion (above).
I would be more likely to use "denied" if someone had very directly accused Tom of killing the goat, but that says nothing about Tom's guilt or my perception of his guilt.
Note that my choice of sentence relates to the main verb (deny or say) and has nothing to do with the gerund.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> Someone must have suggested to Tom that he had killed the goat, or asked if he had killed the goat, or perhaps had accused him, directly, of killing the goat.
> 
> Following any of those, Tom might say "I didn't kill the goat."
> 
> I can report that statement with either of the sentences:
> Tom denied killing the goat.
> Tom said he didn't kill the goat.
> 
> The only prior condition for these sentences is the suggestion (above).
> I would be more likely to use "denied" if someone had very directly accused Tom of killing the goat, but that says nothing about Tom's guilt or my perception of his guilt.
> Note that my choice of sentence relates to the main verb (deny or say) and has nothing to do with the gerund.


I agree that it would be odd to deny killing a goat had you not been accused of killing it. I don't think it's a necessary condition nevertheless.

For instance I (TT) didn't kill the goat. I know I didn't because I've never killed a goat, and so it follows _a fortiori_.

By saying I didn't kill it, I've denied killing it, haven't I?

What I scarcely dare say, in view of all that has gone before, is that were someone to tell me that X had denied killing the goat, I'd naturally assume that someone had accused him of doing so.


----------



## maviliazman

It's not the gerund but the verb itself which makes me feel that what Mary has said is not so neutral about Tom. 
First I thought it is just too suspicious of me. 
But having checked the dictionary entries (OD and MW), I think "deny" has something negative to do with "truth".


----------



## berndf

panjandrum said:


> Someone must have suggested to Tom that he had killed the goat, or asked if he had killed the goat, or perhaps had accused him, directly, of killing the goat.


I am not sure if this was meant as a reply to my post; but just in case it was: Even if someone accused him a killing a/the goat this wouldn't necessarily mean that the goat was in fact dead nor that Mary believed it was. The goat might e.g. be gone and someone might have accused Tom having killed it as an explanation why it is gone.


----------



## timpeac

Thomas Tompion said:


> You can deny doing things which you have not been accused of doing.  Zola said memorably, and I occasionally remind my neighbour (in French) of his words, _He who apologizes is hinting at his own guilt_.
> 
> Coolieinblue, I don't fully understand how, in the face of all this explanation to the contrary, you can continue to maintain that denying is like knowing, and remembering and realizing and discovering, a word which guarantees the truth of what is known, remembered, realized, or discovered.
> 
> It's, in the strict sense of _know_, a nonsense to say_ I knew that I killed her, but I didn't kill her._
> 
> It makes sense to say _I denied that I killed her, but I did kill her._
> 
> It can also make sense to say_ I denied that I killed her, and I didn't kill her._


I agreed with the above when I read it - but I've just heard an instance of "remember" which doesn't guarantee truth. Someone was regressed and "remembered" some false memories - which did not occur.

Another character then says "she now remembers that you attacked her. Did you?"


----------



## LilithE

maviliazman said:


> It's not the gerund but the verb itself which makes me feel that what Mary has said is not so neutral about Tom.
> First I thought it is just too suspicious of me.
> But having checked the dictionary entries (OD and MW), I think "deny" has something negative to do with "truth".



You managed to confuse me with 'OD'  Then I noticed you actually need to be subscribed and checked in the one I have at home.

_Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English_, Oxford University Press:

*deny*

*1.* *to say that sth is not true*:
   [VN] to deny a claim/ a charge/ an accusation - _The spokesman refused either to confirm or deny the reports_.
* [V-ing]* -* He denies attempting to murder his wife.*
*[V (that)]* - *She denied ( that ) there had been any cover-up.*
   [VN that] - _It can't be denied that we need to devote more resources to this problem._

*2. *[VN] to refuse to admit or accept sth: _She denied all knowledge of the incident._ ( ...)

*3. *~sth (to sb)/ ~(sb) (sth) ( formal) to refuse to allow sb to have sth that they want or ask for: [VNN,VN] - _They were denied access to the information._ - _Access to the information was denied to them._

4. [VN] ~yourself ( sth ) ( ...) 


So, according to this, it is absolutely the same if you use -ing form or (that). 
Tom denied killing the goat.
Tom denied (that) he had killed the goat. 
Both sentences mean that Tom said he hadn't killed that goat.

Normally you don't defend yourself unless accused but there are also exceptions. You could be clumsy and have a long history of breaking things around the house. Hearing a weird sound somewhere around could make you say _That wasn't me!_ even before anyone else says something. 
The same way, Tom could have a bad reputation or people in his village could have a prejudice against him. 
The sentence tells me nothing about his innocence, guilt or Mary's feelings. She could even be his girlfriend reporting his words.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

timpeac said:


> I agreed with the above when I read it - but I've just heard an instance of "remember" which doesn't guarantee truth. Someone was regressed and "remembered" some false memories - which did not occur.
> 
> Another character then says "she now remembers that you attacked her. Did you?"


 I'd agree that there is a weak sense of _remember_, in which it might be possible to 'remember' things which hadn't happened.

But those inverted commas, and you've put them in too, Timpeac, are expressive.

In most senses of_ remember_, it's not possible to say _I remember doing it, but I didn't do it_.  You'd need to rephrase and say _I thought I remembered having done it, but I can't have done it_.


----------



## pickarooney

I for one see a clear distinction between Tom's saying he hadn't killed the goat and his denying it. In the former, Tom can simply be saying up front, on discovery of a goat carcass, that before any questions are asked, he didn't kill the goat. For him to deny the act, there is an implied accusation of capricide - Tom is, if not believed, at least suspected of having slain the beast. Now, Mary herself might not have made the accusation, but it's fairly clear that she's not 100% convinced of his innocence. Had she said "Tom said he didn't kill the goat" the implication here is (at least to me) "and that's good enough for me."


----------



## coolieinblue

Cagey, very sorry for the irrelevant question. I will replace the above by this.


panjandrum said:


> Someone must have suggested to Tom that he had killed the goat, or asked if he had killed the goat, or perhaps had accused him, directly, of killing the goat.
> 
> Following any of those, Tom might say "I didn't kill the goat."
> 
> I can report that statement with either of the sentences:
> Tom denied killing the goat.
> Tom said he didn't kill the goat.
> 
> The only prior condition for these sentences is the suggestion (above).
> I would be more likely to use "denied" if someone had very directly accused Tom of killing the goat, but that says nothing about Tom's guilt or my perception of his guilt.
> *Note that my choice of sentence relates to the main verb (deny or say) and has nothing to do with the gerund*.


panjandrum, sorry for the late response.

What about this?
*Mark can deny killing the dog.* 
I think you were saying *deny* goes with a *gerund.*


----------



## pickarooney

*Mark can deny killing the dog.
*The obvious collocation for this is "all he wants, I know he did it."


----------



## panjandrum

coolieinblue said:


> ...
> I think you were saying *deny* goes with a *gerund.*


In this case, yes.
The reason the gerund is there is because it belongs with _deny _in this sentence, that's all.  
It has nothing at all to do with a possible suggestion (post #3) _that a gerund refers to something present or true_.


----------



## LilithE

panjandrum said:


> In this case, yes.
> The reason the gerund is there is because it belongs with _deny _in this sentence, that's all.
> It has nothing at all to do with a possible suggestion (post #3) _that a gerund refers to something present or true_.



Panjandrum, please allow me a slighty off topic question.
I know _deny _is followed by gerund as oposed to the verbs that can be followed by infinitive: enjoy vs want; _Tom enjoyed killing goats_/ _Tom wanted to kill goats._
What I want to know is whether I have to use gerund or I can use gerund. I mean, is it incorrect to say _Tom denied he had killed the goat _?


----------



## Loob

LilithE said:


> Panjandrum, please allow me a slighty off topic question.
> I know _deny _is followed by gerund as oposed to the verbs that can be followed by infinitive: enjoy vs want; _Tom enjoyed killing goats_/ _Tom wanted to kill goats._
> What I want to know is whether I have to use gerund or I can use gerund. I mean, is it incorrect to say _Tom denied he had killed the goat _?


_Tom denied killing the goat_ is OK
_Tom denied that he [had] killed the goat_ is also OK.


This thread is becoming surreal.


----------



## LilithE

Thank you Loob.

And yes, it has been surreal for a while.  I was even tempted to admit killing that goat.


----------



## bamsen

This statement is just a fact. It just proves that Mary is not doubting the statement that she said Tom denied killing the goat.  

Then the tricky one comes, we start making assumptions.

Assumptions are 
1. Mary thinks he killed the goat.
2. Tom killed the goat.
3. Mary beleives in herself and her true word.
4. Mary killed the goat.
5. Tom could be lying = 2
6. tom could be telling the truth = 7
7. tom did not kill the goat.
8. Mary could be lying. = 1 and 3  = pathalogical liar


----------



## Thomas Tompion

bamsen said:


> This statement is just a fact. It just proves that Mary is not doubting the statement that she said Tom denied killing the goat.
> [...]


Hello Bamsen,

I'm sorry to say I don't think it proves anything, though, if Mary is always truthful, it means that Tom denied killing the goat.

I take your point about other things not being implied.


----------



## bamsen

He could have killed all the other animals on the farm yard though but just not the goat, another assumption, that would make it even more interesting.  We could write a chapter on this.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

bamsen said:


> He could have killed all the other animals on the farm yard though but just not the goat, another assumption, that would make it even more interesting. We could write a chapter on this.


We are just concerned with what those five words mean on Mary's lips.


----------



## Hampers

Running with the idea of implied meaning, 

*denied* is weaker and almost demands further explanation 

when put side by side with 

the firm, concise, and definitive *said he did not 
*
Trust I am adding something to the discussion.


----------



## bamsen

I am concerned with the whole concept and not just the 5 words on Mary's lips and all the assumptions that our mind plays with when we study the situation.


----------



## Copyright

bamsen said:


> I am concerned with the whole concept and not just the 5 words on Mary's lips and all the assumptions that our mind plays with when we study the situation.



In this forum, we try to keep our goats corralled.


----------



## madsh33p

I don't quite understand where all these assumptions come from...

Had nobody asked the question and I had simply seen/heard the sentence 

*Tom denied killing the goat

*all I would have thought is: Tom said that he didn't kill the goat. Okay, so he was probably asked whether he had killed the goat, which probably means that there is a dead goat somewhere, but even that is not a necessity.

I would have not made all these assumptions posted in this thread when confronted with the simple sentence, mainly because neither the choice of "deny" nor the gerund have any connotations in terms of reality, fiction, opinion, etc. for me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

madsh33p said:


> I don't quite understand where all these assumptions come from...
> 
> Had nobody asked the question and I had simply seen/heard the sentence
> 
> *Tom denied killing the goat*
> 
> all I would have thought is: Tom said that he didn't kill the goat. Okay, so he was probably asked whether he had killed the goat, which probably means that there is a dead goat somewhere, but even that is not a necessity.
> 
> I would have not made all these assumptions posted in this thread when confronted with the simple sentence, mainly because neither the choice of "deny" nor the gerund have any connotations in terms of reality, fiction, opinion, etc. for me.


I agree entirely, Madsh.


----------

