about 'other'

[Ray]

Hello,

I have a question about the usage of 'other' and the kind of
inference
we can make on the basis of its meaning. Please examine the following
text:


The general objectives of the United States in regard to Japan are:
1. The unconditional surrender or total defeat of Japan;
2. The stripping from the Japanese Empire of territories, including
the Mandated Islands, in harmony with the Cairo Declaration and such
other pertinent agreements as may be reached by the United Nations,
and to which the United States is a party;...


In 2, 'other' is used. Can we infer that the Cairo Declaration is an
agreement on the basis of 'other'?


I'd appreicate your help.


Raymond

[Bill McCray]

Yes, we can infer based on "other" that the Cairo Declaration is an
agreement.

Bill in Kentucky

[Don Phillipson]

"Ray" <raymondali...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:ef0ada7c-dc76-4032...@t35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> I have a question about the usage of 'other' . . .

>
> The general objectives of the United States in regard to Japan are:
> 1. The unconditional surrender or total defeat of Japan;
> 2. The stripping from the Japanese Empire of territories, including
> the Mandated Islands, in harmony with the Cairo Declaration and such
> other pertinent agreements as may be reached by the United Nations,
> and to which the United States is a party;...
>
> In 2, 'other' is used. Can we infer that the Cairo Declaration is an
> agreement on the basis of 'other'?

No. Clause 2 specifies dispersal of the Japanese Empire as
specified by (1) the Cairo Declaration (a policy document dated
1943, that already exists) or by (2) other agreements the UN may
negotiate in future (and which the USA also approves.)

The Cairo Declaration is an agreement because its signatories
indicated in 1943 "we agree." It is not determined by some event or
events in future time.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Ray]

On 5月26日, 上午7時39分, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Ray" <raymondaliasapoll...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message

I was asking about the intentions of the writer, not any factual
information we can infer from the passage.
Of course, whether the Cairo declaration is in fact an agreement or
not canno be solely determined from the given sentence.
I'm assuming that the writer is correct.

[Don Phillipson]

"Ray" <raymondali...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message

news:a3674450-1d15-4df9...@a13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> I was asking about the intentions of the writer, not any factual
> information we can infer from the passage.
> Of course, whether the Cairo declaration is in fact an agreement or

> not cannot be solely determined from the given sentence.

> I'm assuming that the writer is correct.

1. When the source is not provided, we have no basis for speculation
about the intentions of the writer. But we can see clearly what is
written (i.e. asserted to be factual or true.)

2. Whatever the CD may factually or truly be, the quoted sentence
asserts it is real (in order to say this is one of two classes of
agreement, priori and future, that will govern the dispersal of
the Japanese overseas empire. You are right that its character
"cannot be solely determined from the given sentence:" but
this is a trivial point, not germane to your original question.

3. The quoted statement concerns official documents. We
do not "assume the writer is correct" concerning official
documents: we either assume or challenge that the official
documents in question are authentically real, are quoted or
summarized accurately, etc. In historical criticism, we
should never assume the writer is correct: we need first
to verify whether he is accurate, biased, fair in his inferences, etc.,
and this is (mostly) done by approved disciplinary techniques
(not by private intuitions about his literary style etc.)

[Ray]

On 5月26日, 下午2時26分, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Ray" <raymondaliasapoll...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message

So you do infer that the author asserts that the Cairo Declaration is
an agreement?

[Ray]

On 5月26日, 下午2時26分, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Ray" <raymondaliasapoll...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message

As a non-native speaker of English, I am still confused by your reply.

Your original reply is a big NO. But why?
You seem to think that the Cairo Declaration is an agreement. Isn't
the presence of 'other' in the sentence that makes you think so?

[Don Phillipson]

"Ray" <raymondali...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message

news:1a0cfd86-b84a-4b33...@a1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

No. The original text was quoted:

> The general objectives of the United States in regard to Japan are:
> 1. The unconditional surrender or total defeat of Japan;
> 2. The stripping from the Japanese Empire of territories, including
> the Mandated Islands, in harmony with the Cairo Declaration and such
> other pertinent agreements as may be reached by the United Nations,
> and to which the United States is a party;...

The original question was:

> In 2, 'other' is used. Can we infer that the Cairo Declaration is an
> agreement on the basis of 'other'?

The answer is no: "The Cairo Declaration" identifies an official
public document (regardless of its content.) No word or phrase
in the text implies the CD has any particular character. The
quoted paragraph says (#2):
A. The Japanese Empire is to be dispersed, guided by
B. the Cairo Declaration i.e. an existing document, and
C. policies that may be agreed in the future.

The status of the CD is independent. Its legal character as an
agreement (or not) is determined by its wording and signatories,
not by any other document. Within this sentence, the word "other"
has no bearing on the legal or linguistic significance of "the
Cairo Declaration.

Footnote: There were about half a dozen summit conferences
during the Second World War, where the heads of two or more
allied governments convened to agree on general policy, usually
identified by their venues, viz. Casablanca, Cairo, Teheran, Yalta,
etc. The Cairo Conference (which produced the Cairo Declaration)
was noteworthy as the only summit conference that included China.

The quoted sentence is simple. Any confusion may be caused by
expecting hidden complexities that are not really present.

[Daniel James]

In article <jpthbi$k0s$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Phillipson wrote:
> No. The original text was quoted:
>> The general objectives of the United States in regard to Japan are:
>> 1. The unconditional surrender or total defeat of Japan;
>> 2. The stripping from the Japanese Empire of territories, including
>> the Mandated Islands, in harmony with the Cairo Declaration and such
>> other pertinent agreements as may be reached by the United Nations,
>> and to which the United States is a party;...
>
> The original question was:
>> In 2, 'other' is used. Can we infer that the Cairo Declaration is an
>> agreement on the basis of 'other'?
>
> The answer is no:

If I said to you "I have an apple and some other fruit." I would expect
you to understand -- if you didn't already know -- that an apple is a
type of fruit. The word "other" does two things in that sentence: It
tells you that the other fruit may not be apples, and it tells you that
the an apple is a sort of fruit.

You wouldn't say "I have a piece of cake and some other fruit." because
a piece of cake is not a fruit, though you could say "I have a piece of
cake and some other food, which all happens to be fruit." because cake
is food (and so is fruit).

So how is the stuff about the Cairo declaration any different?

I don't think it is. I would say that 2, above, states explicitly that
the Cairo Declaration is an agreement (indeed, is a pertinent agreement,
within the meaning of that paragraph) and also that the other possible
agreements that may be reached (etc., etc.) will be different from the
Cairo Declaration. That's what the word "other" does.

Cheers,
Daniel.