Re: [jboske] Nick on propositionalism &c. (was: RE: Digest Number 134

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> So what do you think is the difference in meaning between 
> "the whole of X" (as distinct from "every part of X") and just 
> "X"?

Why, the obvious one. I drink water (loi djacu) every day, but I do
not drunk the whole of Water (piro loi djacu) every day: that would
imply that I drink the ocean dry. The implicit quantifier "pisu'o"
is motivated by sentences such as these.

> I'll think about it. But either {pixra} is ambiguous or they are not
> pixra. They are evokers, I would say.

So if an abstract (better: non-objective) painting is intended to, and
does, evoke an emotion such as disgust or confusion, then disgust or
confusion is, or is not, its referent?

-- 
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
--_Specht v. Netscape_