The inference
CLAIM-053: the manuscript argues only insufficiency, and the missing half is in the exchange. A12: “you can alter many of the propositions while preserving the speaker’s attitude, social position, and communicative intention”. “A24’s compensation hypothesis (CLAIM-091) gives the mechanism.” If a translation compensates for changed social coordinates with changed linguistic ones, the act is kept by changing what is said, so keeping the proposition is not necessary (CLAIM-486).
Critical questions
- Is the mechanism operative here? No. This is the question that fails. CLAIM-229: “CLAIM-091’s thesis is that ‘lexical infidelity can be required for pragmatic fidelity’, which is about words. A change of wording can keep the proposition, and CLAIM-091 does not say its compensations change it. CLAIM-053 itself notes that the Abstract’s ‘change almost every word’ ‘is about words, not propositions’; the same holds of CLAIM-091.” In CLAIM-229’s words, CLAIM-053 “credits the exchange with more than CLAIM-091 supplies”.
- Could a confounder produce the same outcome? The documented case for the mechanism, CASE-066, shows the same ambiguity: Garnett’s “Stiva” and the Maudes’ “our children” add words to carry the relation. On the translator’s judgement Garnett’s narrator sentence changes its proposition, but that is “a producer’s judgement of A without P, not a measured one” (CLAIM-229’s note of 2026-10-10).
Rejected as an inference to CLAIM-486. A12’s sentence stays as stated in the exchange, and CASE-056 is CLAIM-486’s own ground. The other route CLAIM-053 and CLAIM-229 judged, from the manuscript’s renderings, is ARG-021.
Filed 2026-10-28 by the ADR-061 migration, from CLAIM-053 (version 1) and CLAIM-229 (version 2).