🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov17.162358.22391@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>I agree with Mikhail that logic is a moral obligation, but I don't
>think that sentences have "meanings" (the sentences themselves do fine
>as propositions, and refer to their truth-values).  It is possible to
>analyze the reference of sentences formally, and no "meanings" prove
>to be needed (and this is on the level of semantics, not syntax).

So sentences which differ in that the words _radius_, _hypotenuse_,
_chord_ (etc.) are interchanged are all synonymous, since these terms have
identical reference in all cases (since each line segment in the
Euclidean plane is a radius, is a hypotenuse,....).  My point is that
reduction of meaning to reference gives up most of the reason we have
a word _meaning_ in the first place.