John Cowan wrote:
> > I have yet to see anyone quote a linguistic texts that *explicitly*
says that
> > they use the empty set symbol for this "empty" linguistic entity.
>
> Well, a linguistics paper I read yesterday (citation on request)
definitely
> used the slashed-circle, aka empty set sign, to represent a
nonexistent
> element (in this case an ellipsized word).
Are you sure it wasn't a diameter sign? ;-) Seriously, glyph
substitution aside,
there does not appear to be a history of borrowing the empty set sign
into
linguistics.
Michael Everson wrote:
> >The empty set symbol stands for the empty set (also written {}).
> >But there is no set here, let alone an empty one.
>
> You are going to have to get over this, because you're wrong. The
> empty set symbol is used in linguistics for the purpose described.
I'll get over it when you find a reference (published pre-2003) that
explicitly
(in words!) say that they use the empty set sign for this, and
preferably also
show that this is the history of that use. Then I promise to be very
quiet
(and nod ok)! ;-) (I would still quietly wonder why a click letter,
looking like !,
and the integral sign letter (small esh), got their own letter (Ll)
codes...)
/kent k
