Help needed on how to distinguish part of a question, as a claim.

Hi.
I wonder if someone would help me out, in showing how a claim made within a question, is indeed a claim.

If you are not confused then why can't you be more specific?

that is , of course, what I think too.
I need to prove that such an assertion is indeed not a question.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 02:37 AM ----------

to give the question that I think contains a claim:

What assertion are you saying is not a question? No assertions are questions, are they? I thought I had given a question that contains a claim. Didn't I? I think I don't understand what it is you are looking for.

If you are not confused then why can't you be more specific?

You did give an example, and I agree. But that is not proving that there is a claim there. I need to prove that "You can't be more specific", is a claim contained in the question, whereas the questioner says it is a question, not a claim.

so I need to know how to prove that it is a claim.

What about "rhetorical questions" where the answer is assumed in the question?

Is there some language I am not aware of in terms of which something like that is proved? Isn't it a claim that snakes have no feet? That statement is an assertion, and when I endorse it as true, I am making a claim.

In terms of your example: what you may mean is that the sentence, "you can't be more specific" can be either understood as a question (if asked with an inquiring intonation) so that it could be understood as asking, "can't you be more specific? And that question, "can't you be more specific?" also implies the claim that "you are not specific enough". Since you cannot be more specific unless you were not specific enough. That "you are not specific enough" is clearly something being claimed to be true.

From your replies, I'm beginning to think that perhaps it is not a philosophical question that I'm asking you, but instead maybe it's a grammar question.

I agree with what you are saying, but it is not a proof, not the kind of proof I'm looking for that showss through the graamar and sentence structure that there si a claim n there..

it's not a treacher, it is an attacker trying to disrupt my conversation by first demanding definition of one thing, then claiming my definition is not specific enough.
I replied telling him to back up his claim that I cannot be specifric, and he rpllies asking if I can prove that his quetion is a clima. I then ask if he can prove that his clam is not a quetion, he replies "no".

I then reply that he should answer with proof for his claim that I cannot be more specific.

He shuts up, but I feel that I need to be able to show where a claim aia a claim.
twice this week this has happened, attackers saying that they did not make a claim.

The question, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?" implies, "You think that snakes have no feet", and that I consider proof that the question contains a claim. Why does he not (if he doesn't)?
Including some nasty insults in questions..this one was not a nasty insult, it was juct flack beingh thrown in order to halt my questions .

However, I feel that I should be able to answer in a better way; PROVING that there is a claim in the question

I would not dance to his tune. any question I asked, he would demand more definitions and proofs.


However, the idiot aside, I WOULD like to be able to prove where a claim exists ! ( I already know it internally when a claim is being made..formal proof is what I'm looking for)

Doesn't a claim exist in the question, "Why do you think that snakes have no feet?"? And haven't I proved it by arguing that the question implies the claim, that snakes have no feet?

When he asks for another definition and proof ask him for a definition of the terms, "definition" and, "proof". Obviously he is not arguing seriously, and nothing you say would satisfy him, so why would you engage in such an argument?

I do not think that the question:

"If you are not confused, then why can't you be more specific?"

contains a claim. The question has several possible answers, including:

1. You are confused, so you can't be more specific.

2. You are not confused, but you can't be more specific as you have insufficient linguistic skill.

3. You are not confused, and you can be more specific but do not wish to be.

So the question allows that:
(a) you may or may not be confused, and
(b) you may or may not be able to be more specific.

Hence it is not claiming (i) that you are confused, nor (ii) that you are not confused, nor (iii) that you can be more specific, nor (iv) that you cannot be more specific. There is nothing else that it could possibly be claiming; therefore, in my view, it is not claiming anything at all.

isn't the premise of the question based on a claim ?

I would say no, for the reasons I gave in my post. Can you please say what specific claim you think it is based on?

You did give an example, and I agree. But that is not proving that there is a claim there. I need to prove that "You can't be more specific", is a claim contained in the question, whereas the questioner says it is a question, not a claim.

so I need to know how to prove that it is a claim.