| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"John Jones" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2004 05:27:50 PM |
| Object: |
Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot even be
formulated or written down.
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic framework within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
21 Oct 2004 10:20:45 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cl9d55$72h$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot even be
formulated or written down.
* If the rainbows have five colours then triangles have four sides (ie 'if P then
Q')
* Rainbows have five colours (ie 'P')
Therefore:
* Triangles have four sides (ie 'Q')
In this example, all the premises are false and the conclusion is false. But the
logical form of the argument is valid.
-----------------------
Or Reformulation 1;
All words and sentences carry meaning AND SOME sentences cannot be formulated or
written down.
If a sentence by difinition consists of a subject, verb and object, (who did what
to whom) then ALL sentences carry meaning but if sentence is being defined as any
string of words with a period at the end then only SOME sentences carry meaning,
unless no-meaning is covertly implied when saying meaning.
Therefore we will move to the second conjunct of 1 and then analyze number 2 when
we clear up these ambiguous definions.
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic framework within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
22 Oct 2004 08:31:05 PM |
|
|
* Rainbows have five colours (ie 'P')
Therefore:
* Triangles have four sides (ie 'Q')
In this example, all the premises are false and the conclusion is false.
But the
logical form of the argument is valid.
If we use no-logic in any part of a logical statement we have to present the
case for it in a logical way. If we cannot do that then we cannot say that
any other logical argument based upon it, is valid. The argument you
presented above, is not valid if you accept the particular case (such as the
4-sided triangle). If you accept the particular case (for logic only assumes
it) then you apply validity. And you did accept the case of a 4-sided
triangle and yet handed it to logic. It was not logic that was at fault. It
was your acceptance of a no-logic particular case that you later handed on
to logic.
Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ob-dnWjKT4a04OXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cl9d55$72h$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot even
be
formulated or written down.
* If the rainbows have five colours then triangles have four sides (ie 'if
P then
Q')
* Rainbows have five colours (ie 'P')
Therefore:
* Triangles have four sides (ie 'Q')
In this example, all the premises are false and the conclusion is false.
But the
logical form of the argument is valid.
-----------------------
Or Reformulation 1;
All words and sentences carry meaning AND SOME sentences cannot be
formulated or
written down.
If a sentence by difinition consists of a subject, verb and object, (who
did what
to whom) then ALL sentences carry meaning but if sentence is being defined
as any
string of words with a period at the end then only SOME sentences carry
meaning,
unless no-meaning is covertly implied when saying meaning.
Therefore we will move to the second conjunct of 1 and then analyze number
2 when
we clear up these ambiguous definions.
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic framework
within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
22 Oct 2004 10:14:34 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:clcc8o$hhb$1@titan.btinternet.com...
* Rainbows have five colours (ie 'P')
Therefore:
* Triangles have four sides (ie 'Q')
In this example, all the premises are false and the conclusion is false.
But the
logical form of the argument is valid.
If we use no-logic in any part of a logical statement we have to present the
case for it in a logical way. If we cannot do that then we cannot say that
any other logical argument based upon it, is valid. The argument you
presented above, is not valid if you accept the particular case (such as the
4-sided triangle). If you accept the particular case (for logic only assumes
it) then you apply validity. And you did accept the case of a 4-sided
triangle and yet handed it to logic. It was not logic that was at fault. It
was your acceptance of a no-logic particular case that you later handed on
to logic.
But you claim, covertly, that each word = that word and then set about comparing
that word to see if it is that same or different than other words. How am I to
believe you if you say you can't do that and then do that? What entitles you to
violate the principle that is not particularly allowed?
Immortalist <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ob-dnWjKT4a04OXcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cl9d55$72h$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot even
be
formulated or written down.
* If the rainbows have five colours then triangles have four sides (ie 'if
P then
Q')
* Rainbows have five colours (ie 'P')
Therefore:
* Triangles have four sides (ie 'Q')
In this example, all the premises are false and the conclusion is false.
But the
logical form of the argument is valid.
-----------------------
Or Reformulation 1;
All words and sentences carry meaning AND SOME sentences cannot be
formulated or
written down.
If a sentence by difinition consists of a subject, verb and object, (who
did what
to whom) then ALL sentences carry meaning but if sentence is being defined
as any
string of words with a period at the end then only SOME sentences carry
meaning,
unless no-meaning is covertly implied when saying meaning.
Therefore we will move to the second conjunct of 1 and then analyze number
2 when
we clear up these ambiguous definions.
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic framework
within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
22 Oct 2004 08:06:57 AM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cl9d55$72h$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot even be
formulated or written down.
This is false. If the sentence itself is false then it can be fromulated
with no logical problem.
Ed
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic framework
within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
22 Oct 2004 08:31:05 PM |
|
|
This is false. If the sentence itself is false then it can be fromulated
with no logical problem.
Ed
I don't think logic could sort it.
JJ
Edgar Svendsen <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RB7ed.4365$5i5.2780@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cl9d55$72h$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot even
be
formulated or written down.
This is false. If the sentence itself is false then it can be fromulated
with no logical problem.
Ed
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic framework
within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
26 Oct 2004 01:26:12 PM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsenwrote:
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cl9d55$72h$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
Consider this sentence:
'The meaning of a sentence is indeterminate'
1. If words and sentences carry meaning, then this sentence cannot
even be
formulated or written down.
This is false. If the sentence itself is false then it can be
fromulated
with no logical problem.
Ed
No, it can't be formulated or written down. If the meaning of the
sentence lies in the words themselves then this means that where
there is a meaning, the words convey it, and where there is no
meaning conveyed, no words are conveyed.JJ
2. If words and sentences do not carry meaning, but where sense is
'emergent', then this sentence offers two meanings, one explicit and
one
implicit: the meaning of a sentence is indeterminate (explicit) and
the
meaning of a sentence is determinate (implicit).
My point here being, that the sentence, 'The meaning of a sentence
is
indeterminate' is not contradictory. There is no linguistic
framework
within
which this sentence can support contradiction.
JJ
[/quote:ea4c1089ab]
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Contradiction in Linguistic Theory |
26 Oct 2004 01:26:13 PM |
|
|
My argument is still alright. If a linguistics is based upon a
word/sentence carrying meaning then where there is no meaning there
is no sentence. There are other linguistics however, such as meaning
being emergent. It is important not to switch between models and
logic seems to switch between models.
JJ
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
