Gary:
I wonder what it could mean to be “bound by” a symbol introduced
> by somebody else, if (as you wrote) “the purpose of the person who
> coins a word should not constrain the way that others may use it.”
>
John:
To avoid confusion, anyone who uses a word should be consistent
with its defini
Gary,
I wonder what it could mean to be “bound by” a symbol introduced
by somebody else, if (as you wrote) “the purpose of the person who
coins a word should not constrain the way that others may use it.”
To avoid confusion, anyone who uses a word should be consistent
with its definition. My
u can explain that.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 12-Jan-18 10:19
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] "I don't believe in word senses." (was Lowell Lecture
3.11
Gary,
With some qualifications, I
Gary,
With some qualifications, I agree with your one paragraph summary,
and so would Kilgarriff, Atkins, and Peirce. And I have always
agreed with Peirce's ethics of terminology.
Some comments on what the four of us (AK, SA, CSP, and me) agree with:
I think my main point is clear enough, “al
don't believe in word senses." (was Lowell Lecture
3.11
Gary,
I admit that I was annoyed by your note -- because you were dismissing or
belittling experts in lexicography and other fields such as NLP.
Many people working on NLP have PhDs and research contributions in philosophy,
lin
Gary,
I admit that I was annoyed by your note -- because you were dismissing
or belittling experts in lexicography and other fields such as NLP.
Many people working on NLP have PhDs and research contributions in
philosophy, linguistics, logic, and mathematics -- fields in which
Peirce was a major
communicate with others about the nature of verbal communication. And
I do care about that.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 10-Jan-18 15:45
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] "I don't believe in word senses." (was
John, list
If and when "formal languages" end up with attepts at eliminating
flexibility in natural languages, it will not be natural languages which
will get defeated.
Just take a quick look at the history. All proof lies in the side of
natural languages.
John wrote: "Since teachers use N
Gary,
Continuity in meaning is fundamental to the flexibility of natural
languages (NLs). But the formal languages of logic, mathematics,
and computer science gain precision by reducing or eliminating that
flexibility. They do so by severely restricting the range of meanings.
Since teachers us
In regard of the title in this chain, I'd like add:
If anyone has written a huge amount of definitions on anything does not,
by itself, prove that those are even on the right tract. Words come
easy. Tests on the thougts conveyed do not.
Best,
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 9.1.2018 16:04:
On
Linguistists and lexicographers may be and often are experts in
language, but they are no experts in questions on human mind or the
nature of human understanding. The best of them acknowledge this fact.
No onesided expertice can overcome this dilemma. Both sides of any coin
are needed. Just as
.
I’ve inserted the rest of my response between your lines.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 9-Jan-18 17:43
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] "I don't believe in word senses." (was Lowell Lecture
3.11
G
Gary,
I just read your article. Peirce, Kilgarriff, Atkins, and I would
not agree with the following claim:
I dealt with polysemy extensively in /Turning Signs/ — and went beyond
it in Chapter 2 (http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm) by coining the
word “polyversity” to include not only polyse
On 1/9/2018 9:46 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
I haven’t found time to read the article you cite, John
Please read that article. It's worth the time.
John
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L
ohn F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 9-Jan-18 09:05
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] "I don't believe in word senses." (was Lowell Lecture 3.11
On 1/8/2018 5:14 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> I also think, that philosophers are not a class. Everybody is a
>
On 1/8/2018 5:14 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I also think, that philosophers are not a class. Everybody is
a philosopher somehow, and every philosopher is a non-philosopher
somehow too, especially Nietzsche.
You can make a similar claim about almost any word in any
language. For an analysis of t
16 matches
Mail list logo
