True. There’s also the option “B implicitly understands what A means by X although it usually means something else to B” which is different from “A and B explicitly agree on what X refers to at that time”.
Consider also the possibility that A says X to B correctly predicting that it means something else to B. This would also be sufficient for successful communication, no explicit agreement needed.
Perhaps you meant these to be contained in your statement, and NNOTM did too. In that case we both failed to understand eachother without explicit agreement :)
Yes, I agree that (case 1) A and B explicitly agreeing on what X means is different from (case 2) B implicitly understanding what X means to A, or (case 3) A implicitly understanding what X will mean to B.
And, yes, I meant “A and B agree on what X refers to [when A says X to B]” to include all three cases, as well as several others.
And yes, if you understood me to be referring only to case 1, then we failed to understand each other.
Could be a language issue. The Finnish word for agreement pretty much always refers to explicit agreement, whereas there is no simple word for implicit agreement in Finnish language that isn’t directly translatable to “mutual understanding” or something like that.
True. There’s also the option “B implicitly understands what A means by X although it usually means something else to B” which is different from “A and B explicitly agree on what X refers to at that time”.
Consider also the possibility that A says X to B correctly predicting that it means something else to B. This would also be sufficient for successful communication, no explicit agreement needed.
Perhaps you meant these to be contained in your statement, and NNOTM did too. In that case we both failed to understand eachother without explicit agreement :)
Yes, I agree that (case 1) A and B explicitly agreeing on what X means is different from (case 2) B implicitly understanding what X means to A, or (case 3) A implicitly understanding what X will mean to B.
And, yes, I meant “A and B agree on what X refers to [when A says X to B]” to include all three cases, as well as several others.
And yes, if you understood me to be referring only to case 1, then we failed to understand each other.
Could be a language issue. The Finnish word for agreement pretty much always refers to explicit agreement, whereas there is no simple word for implicit agreement in Finnish language that isn’t directly translatable to “mutual understanding” or something like that.
In English, “agree” often means something like “coincide”. (And Romance languages sometimes say “coincide” for “agree”, as in opinions coinciding.)