Lance wrote: > "No syntactics contains it's own semantics." > Agree/Disagree?
I don't understand your statement here because of invalid syntax. :-) LOL. Does my statement give you a hint about how I will answer you? Syntactic is an adjective, and syntactics is not really a word, so maybe you meant to use the noun syntax instead of syntactics? Also, "it's" means "it is" and does not indicate possessiveness, but I think that perhaps you meant to indicate possessiveness. So now I must begin to speculate upon what you were trying to say and answer accordingly. If you meant syntax, I would disagree with the statement. Some language phrases carry a different meaning based upon word order (syntax). In other words, syntax conveys meaning itself. For example, if I were to say, "my dog blue is happy" you might understand that blue is the name of my dog who has a pleasant disposition, but if I said, "my dog happy is blue," then you would understand something different, that happy is the name of my dog. Interestingly, you might notice that you could not tell whether I meant to communicate whether the dog is sad or whether the dog is actually blue in color without context or some additional definition from me, the author. Another example might be found by examining more simple languages such as that used in computer programming. Some programming languages have an end of statement character that carries a very specific meaning. This is syntax. For example, in PASCAL, if you leave off the semi-colon at the end of the statement, the program will not be understood by the compiler and it will not compile. Clearly, in this case, syntax has its own semantic (meaning). Even in the sentence you wrote above, the rules of syntax suggests you miscommunicated in that "it's" means "it is" and the proper possessive form that you probably meant to use is "its." Now I might overlook your violation of this rule of syntax and infer your real meaning despite your actual word, but that would not mean that syntax itself does not have its own meaning (semantic). It would mean that I was ignoring the meaning conveyed through syntax alone in order to speculate about what you were actually trying to communicate. Do my comments help any? I am not sure where you are going with this. :-) I'm just playing along, expecting some kind of gotcha at some point. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
