SEM121 - Entailment 

I can't believe how well this was explained... Thank u so much!

My God, his oratory makes the content wonderfully understandable

A huge thank you to you ,professor 🙏 ❤️ You are absolutely unique in teaching Us Linguistic ❤️ I definitely believe that you are super extraordinary lecturer in the 21st century. That is my humble opinion. I'm incredibly excited to learn more about Linguistic from your terrific channel. With much belief in you. Many thanks for your commitment to teach us easily and effectively. I really appreciate your time (and you )

Jürgen, du bist der bester!!!!! habe einen Exam morgen und das Video war eine GROSSE hilfe!

Best content I have seen regarding entailment. Love it.

Thanks a million prof Dr. You are absolutely unique in teaching style. I wish I were in Germany 🇩🇪. 🇩🇪 I really appreciate your time and you ❤️

Your demonstration technique is wonderful! شكرا

You are the best teacher ever! Thanks so much indeed Sir! May God reward you if the world do not...

You are a great teacher! I'm not into linguistics. It's just part of my degree, but you make studying it less boring and easier. Thanks a lot!

Mr. Handke, just in case someone hasn't told you in the past 10 minutes how great an instructor you are, let me be the first! I love the material you put together, and the Activboard really makes the presentations a joy. Keep up the great work!

best lecture i have ever watched in my life....

Thanks so much Dr. Jurgen your explanation added more about my understanding in linguistics about semantics.

Thank you very much!

how is implication different from entailment?

you are a great teacher, you really helped me a lot thank you

Thank you so much. It's great work you are doing.

Thanks a lot you are really a very good teacher you make things seem beautifully simple

I'm so grateful sir, I really benefited from the lecture thanks alot

You are the best teacher ! Thank you very much

It's helpfull...thank you so much ^^

i started to like linguistic, cause of you..thank you so much Sir :)

thank you for such a brilliant lecture.

Thanks so much. The best lecture ever! I want to know about 'presupposition'. Could you make a video on that?

I have some confusion about the paraphrase of p: John is a man and q: John is a male. I would say p entails q but q doesn't entail p because John could be a boy.

Thank you.explicitly explained

The key point is the relation between P and Q, p is T and Q is T ,then entailment is correct! Furthermore, there must exist meaning between P and Q and it makes sense!

thank you so much dear teacher you helped me a lot to understand

Thanks for the lesson, it helped. Now I go out to buy a purple dog :)

Sorry but if we apply the negativity test to:: p = John loves Mary. q = John does not love Mary. p & ¬q = John loves Mary and John does love Mary. Is this sentence logical? If yes, p does not entail q. Since p contradicts q and since contradiction is a type of entailment, these sentences should entail. What kind of error am I doing in this reasoning?

It's helpful. Thanks, sir.

wow this is very clear to me. Thank you sir

Is P and Q constant variables?

studying for my final exam !!

sir at 5:26 it is confusing cause According to my intuition it will be TRUE. cause, It may be possible that Caesar died |= (Brutus has killed him OR Brutus has not killed him).

That was really helpful. Thanks

you saved me

That was great!!

presupposition maybe not proposition ?

great pprofessor

Great video... I don't know whether you're writing a 'F' or not though!?

you're genius

Do all Germans write F like a katakana Ki (キ)?

Thank. U. Sirr can u explain prresuposition in details

Is it proposition or presupposition?

John cooked an egg entails John boiled an egg?

This explanation isn't quite right. Entailment is a meta proposition, not a proposition itself, so it should not appear as a column in a truth table (columns are reserved for propositions). A proposition p entails another q (p |= q) iff there is no way that p can be true and q false, so you'd have to check *all* rows in the truth table to know if p |= q. If for all rows in which p is true then q is also true, then p entails q (p |= q). Equivalently, p entails q iff p -> q is always true.