Editing 1652: Conditionals

{{comic
| number    = 1652
| date      = March 7, 2016
| title     = Conditionals
| image     = conditionals.png
| titletext = 'If you're done being pedantic, we should get dinner.' 'You did it again!' 'No, I didn't.'
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is about the many different uses of {{w|conditional}} statements in human languages, such as those marked by the English word "if". The most obvious kind of conditional is a statement about conditions and consequences (i.e. {{w|causality}}). An expression such as "If A, then B" amounts to asserting that, if A is true, then B is also true is called {{w|conditional probability}}:

 "If it rains, then the air gets cleaner." (a general law or observation)
 "If it rains, then they'll cancel the event." (a prediction)

This kind of '''simple conditional''' statement is the most common case, and has been adapted for use in computer programming and formal logic. But consider the following statement:

 "If Seattle is always rainy, Beijing is smoggy just as often."

This kind of "bleached conditional" doesn't at all assert that, if the left statement is true, the right one needs to be true. Rather, it's just a way of introducing the right statement (taken as novel) by comparing it with the left one (taken for granted). "As everyone knows, Seattle is always rainy, right? Well, Beijing is smoggy just as often".

So conditionals in language are more varied than those of conditionals when used in {{w|Strict conditional|logic}} or {{w|Conditional (computer programming)|programming}}. Another kind of linguistic conditional is as follows:

 "There are biscuits in the sideboard if you want some."

No one would understand this statement as meaning "if you want biscuits, they'll magically pop up in the sideboard". The if-clause ("if you want some") doesn't specify the conditions in which the then-clause ("there are biscuits") is true. Rather, it describes the conditions in which it's ''relevant''. We can paraphrase it as: "If you want biscuits, then you'll be interested in knowing that there are some in the sideboard". If A is true, then it's relevant for us to talk of B. This construction is known to linguists as '''relevance conditionals''', or "biscuit conditionals", due to {{w|J.L. Austin|J.L. Austin's}} discussion based on the example above.

The humor in the comic is based on the difference between simple conditionals and relevance conditionals. [[Cueball]] gets a chat message on his phone to a social event: "I'll be in your city tomorrow if you want to hang out." This is an everyday relevance conditional, with a meaning like: "if you want to hang out, then it's relevant for you to know that I'll be in your city tomorrow".

However, Cueball interprets it as a simple conditional, just as in formal logic. Under this interpretation, the message amounts to a claim that, if it's true that Cueball wants to hang out, then it's also true his conversation partner will be in his city. Cueball is willfully forcing this interpretation, due to his belief that simple conditionals are the only "proper" ones. That is, he's being a {{w|pedant}}. A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision.

Under this deliberate misreading, if it's true that Cueball wants to hang out, then we automatically know the other person's location. But if Cueball does ''not'' want to hang out, we don't know anything about their location; they could be in the city or anywhere else. Since the person is only "guaranteed" to be in the city if Cueball wants to hang out, he asks them where they will be if he doesn't.

The other person then makes an excuse to drop their invitation, apparently tiring of his pedantry. Hence in the caption Cueball/[[Randall]] observes that being pedantic with regard to conditionals is likely to make your friends disinclined to hang out with you. So he tries not to be pedantic about it.

In the title text, the initiator of the conversation presents another "If A, then B" conditional: "If you're done being pedantic, we should get dinner". In most contexts, this kind of "If you're done being X" utterance marks relevance conditionals. Cueball assumes so, and answers "You did it again!". But the reply is "No, I didn't." Which means that ''this'' time they're actually using a simple conditional; because, if Cueball isn't done being a pedant, then they think it's a bad idea to have dinner together. And since Cueball was not finished being pedantic about conditionals, then the last no, would probably also end up being a no to having dinner.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is shown texting on a phone with a friend. Above him in light gray rectangles with indentations pointing left are the two text messages from his friend, and between them in dark a gray rectangle with an indentation pointing right is Cueball's message.]
:Friend (text): I'll be in your city tomorrow if you want to hang out.
:Cueball (text): But where will you be if I ''don't'' want to hang out?!
:Friend (text): You know, I just remembered I'm busy.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Why I try not to be pedantic about conditionals.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]
[[Category:Phones]]