🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov19.211450.9582@news.Hawaii.Edu> 
lee@Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:

GL:
>>>...  Having shown that two sentences imply each other
>>>in some logical syntax, what is gained except confusion by proceeding
>>>to associate some esoteric meaning-thing with them both?

MZ:
>>Invariance under selection of specific syntax. Explanation of
>>syntactical rules.  That, and bivalence.  In short, truth. ...

GL:
>Justifying a semantic account of paraphrase by appeal to some need
>felt need to give an account of truth is circular.

Only if you feel that there is no need for a theoretical account of truth.

GL:
>						    "Explanation of
>syntactical rules" sounds nice, except that no syntactical rule of any
>natural language has ever been explained semantically, and there is no
>reason to think one ever will.

Ah so.  May I suggest that you get off your throne, go to the nearest
library, and look up the subjects of relational and functional grammar?
While you are at it, you might check out an elementary introduction to
the semantic explanation of syntax, _Grammar and Meaning_ by Howard
Jackson.

GL:
>(I'm reading this in sci.lang, but I'm beginning to suspect you do
>not intend what you are saying to have any relevance to natural
>language.  If not, think about editing your newgroups line.)

I have thought about editing my newsgroup line at some length, consequently
abstaining from cross-posting to sci.lang.dogmatic.transformational-grammar.
Perhaps you ought to confine your activities to that group, which is more
likely to preserve intact your peculiar intuitions of natural language.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."