home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:659 sci.philosophy.tech:4148 sci.lang:8078 sci.philosophy.meta:2612
- Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang,sci.philosophy.meta
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!carina.unm.edu!lgorbet
- From: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
- Subject: Re: Folk Theories of Meaning (was re: Theories of meaning not relying solely on sym)
- Message-ID: <71kqssj@lynx.unm.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:22:32 GMT
- Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
- References: <1992Nov16.122343.17501@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Nov17.131357.12605@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1992Nov17.162358.22391@guinness.idbsu.edu>
- Lines: 14
-
- In article <1992Nov17.162358.22391@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
- >I agree with Mikhail that logic is a moral obligation, but I don't
- >think that sentences have "meanings" (the sentences themselves do fine
- >as propositions, and refer to their truth-values). It is possible to
- >analyze the reference of sentences formally, and no "meanings" prove
- >to be needed (and this is on the level of semantics, not syntax).
-
- So sentences which differ in that the words _radius_, _hypotenuse_,
- _chord_ (etc.) are interchanged are all synonymous, since these terms have
- identical reference in all cases (since each line segment in the
- Euclidean plane is a radius, is a hypotenuse,....). My point is that
- reduction of meaning to reference gives up most of the reason we have
- a word _meaning_ in the first place.
-
-