ludeqrist, you're talking as if it was one or the other, while it's both at the same time (half capacity).

I know that the glass is both half empty and half full, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the context.

The comparison is not exactly in its place. Liechtensteiner believes that the answer is found on what happened before so as to understand the present state of the glass. This is a nuanced way of looking at it, and it's more accurate, but I did say to him that both can be said actually, if one would not be specific in this.

I am not a linguist, but in terms of semantics you are still wrong I think.

Following the original post, if you had taken water out, it's not that it's half empty, but rather that it is half emptied.

Regardless, you are missing the point of the exercise. My rain example was the closest thing I could come up with that was similar to the cup example, and fair enough it's not a perfect comparison, but I am still making the same point.

If it's raining, and I am in a good mood, I would still see the rest of my day as something to look forward to.
If it's raining, and I am in a bad mood, I would likely be grumpier than usual and will not be looking forward to the rest of my day.
Assume in both examples that I am not a footballer or farmer, just an ordinary citizen.

My outlook on both days in which it's raining changes depending on my mood. As would be in the case of the glass, I would say it's half empty or half full depending on my mood.

Neither.

Its all full.

Half full of water, half full of air.

@lievxhtensteinar

Hmm, hmm, I got a strange impression you answered yourself in the first post

Following the original post, if you had taken water out, it's not that it's half empty, but rather that it is half emptied.

When something is half emptied, then it's befitting that the glass is called in that situation "half empty." The reason why is because of context. Just like if a glass is completely empty, and I add half amount of water into it, then it's befitting to call it "half full" due to what happened before its present state.

Regardless, you are missing the point of the exercise. My rain example was the closest thing I could come up with that was similar to the cup example, and fair enough it's not a perfect comparison, but I am still making the same point.

If it's raining, and I am in a good mood, I would still see the rest of my day as something to look forward to.
If it's raining, and I am in a bad mood, I would likely be grumpier than usual and will not be looking forward to the rest of my day.
Assume in both examples that I am not a footballer or farmer, just an ordinary citizen.

My outlook on both days in which it's raining changes depending on my mood. As would be in the case of the glass, I would say it's half empty or half full depending on my mood.

If I know what happened to the glass before its present state, then there's no reason for me to judge it based on my mood. If I know the context, then there's no reason for me to alter the context based on emotional feelings. It doesn't make any sense. If you're not aware of what happened before its present state, then I can understand that you would either call it "half full" or "half empty", without thinking about what happened before its present state. But what Liechtensteiner was trying to imply, is that the state of the glass can be most accurately described by looking at the context.

Edited 8/4/2020 22:08:36

You are implying nuances in the meaning of the word that I am not sure really exist. Something being half empty literally means that it is at half capacity. You are saying that the meaning is nuanced, and that we can infer the glass has been half emptied.
If that is true, then why would we ever say that something is half emptied, if this is already implied when we say it is half empty?

You are Dutch, try this half full/empty experiment in Dutch, and let me know if you have still come to the same conclusion.

It's neither, it is completely full, one half with liquid and the other half with air.

@Marcus Aurelius

Yo Marcus, how is yours doing, how's the weather in England? Is the tea good t'day?

If that is true, then why would we ever say that something is half emptied, if this is already implied when we say it is half empty?

A language is broad in expression. When someone says it's half emptied, he's talking about the action. But when someone says that it's half empty, he's talking about the state of the glass, whereby the state of the glass has been described based on the action that happened in the recent past.

I think I finally understood the ludeqrist's reasoning

Tell me if I'm wrong: basically what the ludeqrist says is that yes, the glass is both half empty and half full, but we can also talk about it being half emptied OR half filled (which is what he's talking about with the "last action that was done to it").

Yes, I understand his reasoning, what I am arguing is that you cannot infer this from simply saying "half empty/full", you must say "half emptied" or "half filled" depending on what has been done to it, in order to convey the meaning Ludeqrist wishes to convey.

I am not a linguist, which is why I suggested asking yourself the half empty/full question in your own native tongue to see if you encounter the same problem. In Spanish I would make the same argument I am making now, being the difference in meaning between "vacío" (empty) and "vaciado" (emptied).

Let's put it another way, by completing the sentence.

If I empty the glass like you say, you argue that I need only say it is half empty to convey that it has been half emptied. This is simply not true.
If I empty the glass to half capacity, I can still say that the glass is half full (of water). Do you see what I mean? This nuance in meaning does not exist.

Saying that a glass is half empty or half full tells us exactly this, that it is at half capacity. You are incorrectly inferring that half empty implies it has been half emptied.

If I empty the glass like you say, you argue that I need only say it is half empty to convey that it has been half emptied. This is simply not true.
If I empty the glass to half capacity, I can still say that the glass is half full (of water). Do you see what I mean? This nuance in meaning does not exist.

Saying that a glass is half empty or half full tells us exactly this, that it is at half capacity. You are incorrectly inferring that half empty implies it has been half emptied.

If you empty the glass till 50% of the water remains, then the most accurate way of describing the glass is to say that it's "half empty." Now I'm not saying this is obligatory to describe it this way. Even if one knows the context of what happened to the glass, he's still allowed to say that it's either half empty or half full, but the most befitting way of describing the state of the glass, is based on looking at what happened before so as to understand the present state of the glass.

For example, if I was working in a milk-factory, and they had a screen whereby certain things are displayed. So, if the milk was emptied for 50%, then one could see on the screen, "half empty", so that the scientists understood what ingredients they needed to add and so that they knew how far they were with the operation. When the scientists saw "half full" being displayed, then they knew that they were still at the beginning of the operation.

The operation goes like this:

1. Milk is added into the container for 50% (display on screen: half full).
2. Milk is being analyzed.
3. The rest of the milk is being added (display on screen: full).
4. Second analysis.
5. The container is emptied for 50% (display on screen: half empty) to add ingredients.
6. Ingredients are added.
7. Rest of the milk is being added again. (display on screen: full + done)

When they see "half empty", they know why it's called "half empty." It helps to use "half full" and "half empty" like this, so as to be more precise and to avoid confusion.

You are incorrectly inferring that half empty implies it has been half emptied

I've not said that describing the glass as "half empty" implies - in every situation - that the glass has been emptied. As for certain situations, based on a certain context, then "half empty" can be used specifically to imply that the glass has been emptied.

My head is half empty, but it's enough for me. I don't use it much anyway.

@Liech: Yes. I get it. But let's say water pours out of Glass A into Glass B. Glass C pours into Glass A. Is it still half full or half empty?

Person A watches the cup being half emptied. Person B walks into the room. Person A then tells person B "The glass is half empty". It is not possible for person B to infer that it has recently been emptied as opposed to filled, because "half empty" simply does not convey this information. I refer back to my previous comment

If I empty the glass to half capacity, I can still say that the glass is half full (of water).

This is why this psychological experiment arguably works. Someone who says the glass is half full, is focusing on what they already have (positive outlook), whereas someone who says it is half empty, is focusing on what they are missing (negative outlook). The only variable in either scenario is the person's perspective on life, not whether it was recently emptied or filled.

I've not said that describing the glass as "half empty" implies - in every situation - that the glass has been emptied. As for certain situations, based on a certain context, then "half empty" can be used specifically to imply that the glass has been emptied.

You are grasping at straws now, you have conceded that I am right. As with your example, it is very specific, as you say, "based on a certain context", and you are using an exception to justify the norm.

I will amend my conclusion so that we can finally agree.

Saying that a glass is half empty or half full tells us exactly this, that it is at half capacity. You are incorrectly inferring that half empty implies it has been half emptied, in most cases.

Edit: I wanted to add something, because it just came to mind as I was eating.

When I studied philosophy in school we studied logic and logical conclusions. For example, we have the following statements:
-When it rains, the floor is wet.
-The floor is only wet when it rains.
If I now say that the floor is wet, we can conclude that it rained with absolute certainty. (This conclusion is false, but that is only because the second premise is also false.).

Following this example:
-The glass is half empty.
-It can only be desribed as such when it has been half emptied.
If these two premises are true, then your conclusion is valid. I have already shown that the second premise is not true.

I studied philosophy almost 7 years ago, so I am bit shaky on this, but I hope I am getting my point across. You are assuming meaning where there is none. Words are used to convey information, and half empty simply does not convey to someone that the glass has been half emptied, it describes only the current state of the glass.

Edited 8/7/2020 14:27:35

*I studied philosophy at school*

Waste of time. Useless information. Listen to me. I will give u true knowledge

Tell me berdan, I want to know everything.

Following this example:
-The glass is half empty.
-It can only be desribed as such when it has been half emptied.
If these two premises are true, then your conclusion is valid. I have already shown that the second premise is not true.

I clarified this more than one time already, but I'll repeat it again: I do not say that the glass can only be called "half empty" if it was half emptied before its present state.

As for your long text, then it seems to me that you still miss the nuance. The nuance that I was telling you about does not invalidate using "half empty" in another context, and the same can be said that using "half empty" in general (without being specific) does not invalidate the nuance that I was trying to imply. Neither one of the two blockades the other.

You are assuming meaning where there is none. Words are used to convey information, and half empty simply does not convey to someone that the glass has been half emptied, it describes only the current state of the glass.

Language can be used in different ways. In a broad manner (where there's nuance), and in a specific, orderly manner (where there's accuracy), and in lots of other ways which I won't be talking about here. Describing the current glass as half empty, intending thereby that the glass was half emptied, is not a missed target. The connection in meaning is present. When he intends to say that the glass is half empty by the past-action of the glass being emptied, then he's just using a broader meaning. As the Dutch say: "Look farther than your nose long is."

For example, if I would say, "espionage is a form of war", then I don't intend thereby the most literal meaning of "war." I then intend thereby that espionage is a soft form of war. Again, the connection in meaning is present, but someone who is rigid in comprehension will not understand how this sentence can be said when he sees it at first sight. A rigid person is too orderly. The middle path is to be both fluent and orderly.

For more clarification about the rigid person, I'd like to say that the rigid person, upon seeing the sentence, "espionage is a form of war", could say something like this:

Well, this is not correct because war involves violence. Espionage is not about violence, but about merely trying to get information and finding out about the secrets of the enemy.

To use that sentence ("espionage is a form of war"), indicates extending the meaning of 'war', whereby it can be used both literally and metaphorically. A language shouldn't be seen as a dry, hard, rigid stick that can't bend. Who wants to use a language like that?

Edited 8/7/2020 20:50:24