From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 17 20:27:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 18 Aug 2001 03:27:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 68348 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2001 03:27:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Aug 2001 03:27:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Aug 2001 03:27:51 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.23]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010818032750.KGSJ29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 04:27:50 +0100 To: "John Cowan" Cc: Subject: semantics (was: RE: [lojban] {kai'i} Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 04:24:40 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" > And Rosta scripsit: > > > I have a dim sense that you're quoting me here... I don't actually > > remember having described your contempt as horribly logical positivist, > > Such was the case, though. I trust that you duly take pride in this, rather than umbrage. > > but certainly that exactly captures my sentiment! I find contempt for > > the semantics-pragmatics distinction as incomprehensible [...] > > A sentiment I return with interest. Semantics, it seems to me, is > a theory about what statements *should* mean, but don't. > (Except in Lojban.) Semantics is the meaning a sentence has such that the interpretation of all utterances of that sentence can be accounted for Griceanly as a product of the discourse context and the sentence meaning. (Semantics is (a slightly less explicit form of) Grice's "What is Said"; if you reject semantics you reject Grice.) > > > ("the yeomen, who were always polishing up their brightly colored yeos > > > for some idiotic festival or other" -- _Bored of the Rings_) > > > > Are there some people blessed with the gift of discerning the > > pertinence of your quotations, as opposed to merely appreciating their > > quirky charm? > > Ouch. My mother told me, back when I was a yoot, to try to make my jokes > more relevant to the situation, but somehow I still seem to manage it > very badly... > > In this case it was a mere verbal association between > "refurbishing" and "polishing up". Anyhow, I thought you would like the > brightly colored yeos. No need to ouch; I do enjoy your cowandicta but they usually also leave me wondering how obtuse I'm being. If, in general, cowandicta are mere conceptual doodles, ornamentation, then I can read it in the same spirit that I read Wallace Stevens, simply enjoying the yeos. > > I do remember the history. But when Xod said that ka is redundant, and > > you replied that redundancy is Good Thing, a better response would > > have been that Xod is right and that of course there are redundancies, > > given the gradual way the language was made and the way we are still > > in the process of coming to understand it. > > Indeed, it *is* a better response, and I'm glad you've given it. > > (BTW, your mail is still coming from a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com, though > you say that address is dead.) Allegedly it has now become a mere alias of the other, or at least autoforwards to the other. Someday heaven-on-earth will arrive & I will find an email provider that does what I want it to and that doesn't do what I don't want it to. --And.