David: You're too clever for words, NOT. Here's the full quote: " "Certainly the Godelian theorems-which we may transpose from a logico-deductive system to a grammatico-syntactic or a logico-syntactic system-warn us that no syntactics contains its own semantics." Kudos to you David as a grammarian. If syntax and semantics were the same thing then you'd be home free. They aren't. Blessings, Lance From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: May 11, 2004 14:33 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Mediation of Christ
> 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. ---------- "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.
