From 82e926951d49e22a0a025b049a8ea8120643a8a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bulhwi Cha Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:24:16 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] doc: emphasize two words --- docs/en/notes/chapter03/propositions.md | 4 ++-- docs/omegat/project_save.tmx | 10 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/en/notes/chapter03/propositions.md b/docs/en/notes/chapter03/propositions.md index 2891f34..0e0930d 100644 --- a/docs/en/notes/chapter03/propositions.md +++ b/docs/en/notes/chapter03/propositions.md @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ mathematical statement whose truth value we don't know yet. Both responded that However, they were divided on whether (b) is a proposition. One of them told that (b) is also a proposition since we *can* determine its truth or falsehood. -The other argued that, linguistically speaking ("국어적으로 해석한다면"), we can -determine the truth or falsehood of (b), but mathematically speaking, it can't +The other argued that, *linguistically* speaking ("국어적으로 해석한다면"), we can +determine the truth or falsehood of (b), but *mathematically* speaking, it can't be a proposition. ## References diff --git a/docs/omegat/project_save.tmx b/docs/omegat/project_save.tmx index 77fd522..24d6a71 100644 --- a/docs/omegat/project_save.tmx +++ b/docs/omegat/project_save.tmx @@ -1807,6 +1807,16 @@ definitionally equal. 두 함수 <g2>f</g2>와 <g3>g</g3>가 정의상 같으면 안 된다. + + + The other argued that, <g2>linguistically</g2> speaking ("국어적으로 해석한다면"), we can +determine the truth or falsehood of (b), but <g3>mathematically</g3> speaking, it can't +be a proposition. + + + 다른 분은 (2)를 '국어적으로' 해석한다면 그것의 참과 거짓을 판별할 수 있지만, '수학적으로' 해석한다면 진릿값을 모르는 진술은 명제가 될 수 없다고 주장하셨습니다. + + The other argued that, linguistically speaking ("국어적으로 해석한다면"), we can