Base on your answer, if Mary asks "Is it dark outside?" and John replies "It might be dark", what does John mean? How should Mary interpret the reply?

That is the very rare situation in which your answer would apply. He is hundreds of times more likely to use this phrase when it it not an answer to a question and hundreds of times more likely to answer "I don't know' than give this answer. You are acting as though information exchange is the only reason to say things. So you are framing this in a totally unnatural way. The more likely setup is when there is no question, and someone says the phrase, expecting you to check your logic.

It's not rare to ask someone the question "Is it dark outside?" Indeed, my example use case is no less common nor contrived than your example use case. And also, Meaning exchange is the only reason to say things to others. Every utterance sent to a receiver has an intended meaning by the sender.

It is rare AS I STATED for the phrase in question to be considered an answser. One is much more likely to simply admit one does not know, than to tell the listener something they are already perfectly aware of. After all, who would ask the question if they did not know that it might have either answer?

@Pacerier I prefer Wittgenstein over you. There are multiple games, and propositional information is only one. Co-ordination of actions with others is a separate use of language.

If you want to find a meaning exchange behind this statement it is usually 'I believe you have not adequately considered whether or not it might be dark outside.' and not a reflection of the actual or potential state in question.

One is free to treat things like 'sit down' as propositions and create objects corresponding to my will, etc. But will, obligation, possibility etc. do not act like normal objects, they are whole other domains of discourse than objective reality, and embedding them into propositional structures creates silly conflicting quantification problems -- "Do you want not to want that? Then, do you really want it? Or does some part of you not want it? Does that allow you to be considered as a single agent?"

1) As I stated, it's not rare at all. Your worldview and experience is not the world's view and experience. The situations I mentioned have just as much likelihood as the ones you mentioned. 2) While you may believe whatever you want to, do note that Wittgenstein's concept of language games is not orthodox at all and there are many philosophers who disagree with him. 3) You are repeating your mistake again: your worldview.......................................................................‌​‌​...........................................................

................................................................................‌​‌​............................................................... and experience is not the world's view and experience. The meaning you declared the statement to be is not the usual meaning. It is no more common than the meaning that I've mentioned. 4) No, I do not see how you can treat "sit down" as a proposition. "sit down" is not a proposition as it does not have a truth value.

If you are talking about frequency, experiments can be done. I have suggested reviewing your past, or referencing drama. I have run these experiments. Your experience is not universal either, but language use does not vary that significantly. In sheer statistical terms, the assertion is incorrect.

You can treat 'sit down' as "I wish for you to sit down". That makes it information transfer, as you insisted previously all communication had to be. But it does not capture the meaning. So now things do not need to take the form you insisted they take earlier? But I was still in no way right in complaining about that assertion you just reversed yourself on. You are just not arguing fairly.

We are not talking theology here. Orthodoxy is beside the point. I find this an applicable framing, and you have not offered a better one.

5) I've mentioned it right from the start that my experience is not universal and thus it possess the same amount of validity-ness as your experience which is not universal too. You still don't realize your mistake. Experiments can be done. I've run these experiments. In..............................................................................‌​‌​...............................................................................‌​..‌​............................................

.............sheer statistical terms, your assertion is incorrect. 6) I stand by what I said: "Meaning exchange is the only reason to say things to others". 'sit down' is a meaning exchange and thus it exactly fits what I stated, no more, no less. My comments are still up there for reference, Which one is an unfair argument? Be specific. 7) You are showing me evidence first-hand that your interpretation of words within context is flawed. "Orthodox" here means "mainstream". If I say "go to the bank and withdraw some notes" are you going to say that there are no notes to withdraw from th

I did not ever claim anything was mainstream. You seem to have confused common with correct.

I think you are conveniently lying about your data.

I am not pretending to insist your life is normal, but normal exists, and the right thing to do to check if something is normal is to look at common representations. You refuse to take a third-party representation as data.

Give me a third party representation that supports the minority status you accord my position.

If you have framed 'sit down' as a meaning exchange, then it has a truth-value. It is true that I want you to sit down. I do not think you can claim it is a meaning exchange and not a proposition.

I still prefer Wittgenstein over you, and I have not even claimed he is right....

You are being obstinate beyond any reasonable measure, and I am done interacting with you.