Do not speak of Names!
Lazarus
are a sort of playground for words. We are NOT concerned with words,
here. We are NOT concerned with NAMES, either. Go post in alt.sig or
alt.my.cute.handle if names are important to you. We have names so we
know who we are. We need not discuss the "SEMANTICS" of names.
SEMANTICS are forbidden.
Lazarus
Wilf Leblanc
>SEMANTICS are forbidden.
What is this ? I compliment the previous post of yours and obviously
I spoke too soon.
Syntax: "The way in which words are arranged to form phrases and
sentences".
To say that we are not concerned with words is ludicrous. And we
weren't discussing the semantics of names, it was the tactical
advantage or disadvantage of using certain names.
Furthermore, names are important as well. We have names, but pseudo
names are the problem, tactically speaking. Well, not necessarily a
problem, but something to keep in mind to gain a tactical advantage.
Almost anything is open for discussion, which relates to the tactical
application of syntax, or the syntactical application of tactics.
>Lazarus
-
bq
Mark Kille
>SEMANTICS are forbidden.
Hmm. Most of the posts in this group seem to be about what is and is not an
acceptable topic of conversation here. Normally I'd find it really obnoxious
to see such a self-righteous attitude, but considering the general idea
behind the group...it would appear a little tactical syntax is being applied
as we speak, no? Controlling the form of the discussion is the first step to
controlling the minds of those participating in the discussion.
So I say: bull. Syntactically, your tactics won't work on me. The study of
semantics has its own forms, which are no less valid objects of study or tools
of world domination (if you go for that sort of thing) than whatever it is
you think you're talking about here. Just because you say you know what
tactical syntax is, and pass yourself off as an expert, does not mean I have
to buy into your constructed truth. My truth or my goldfish's truth is just
as true.
So on the topic of names and semantics...yes, we have names so we know who we
are. But the names we choose or have chosen for us say things about who we
calim to be. Wolf Blitzer would not have been nearly the Scud Stud he was if
he had been named Percy Urquhart. If you adopt an imposing name, people will
be much more likely to accept your authority. That's why George Bush was
always a weenie...
--
**************************************************************************
" People don't tell many stories about the beautiful
daughter of a poor woodcutter who wanted lunch and found some in the
pantry. " --Dawn Friedman
Lazarus
Kille) writes: >dtr...@netcom.com (Lazarus) writes: > >>There are certain
elements posting in this newsgroup who think that we >>are a sort of
playground for words. We are NOT concerned with words, >>here. We are
NOT concerned with NAMES, either. Go post in alt.sig or
>>alt.my.cute.handle if names are important to you. We have names so we
>>know who we are. We need not discuss the "SEMANTICS" of names. >
>>SEMANTICS are forbidden. > >Hmm. Most of the posts in this group seem to
be about what is and is not an >acceptable topic of conversation here.
Normally I'd find it really obnoxious >to see such a self-righteous
attitude, but considering the general idea >behind the group...it would
appear a little tactical syntax is being applied >as we speak, no?
Controlling the form of the discussion is the first step to >controlling
the minds of those participating in the discussion. >So I say: bull.
Syntactically, your tactics won't work on me. The study of >semantics has
its own forms, which are no less valid objects of study or tools >of world
domination (if you go for that sort of thing) than whatever it is >you
think you're talking about here. Just because you say you know what
>tactical syntax is, and pass yourself off as an expert, does not mean I
have >to buy into your constructed truth. My truth or my goldfish's truth
is just >as true. >So on the topic of names and semantics...yes, we have
names so we know who we >are. But the names we choose or have chosen for
us say things about who we >calim to be. Wolf Blitzer would not have been
nearly the Scud Stud he was if >he had been named Percy Urquhart. If you
adopt an imposing name, people will >be much more likely to accept your
authority. That's why George Bush was >always a weenie... > > >--
You speak of semantics again. This newsgroup is not about that, hence,
discussions of such do not exist here, get it?
>**************************************************************************
>" People don't tell many stories about the beautiful >daughter of a poor
woodcutter who wanted lunch and found some in the >pantry. " --Dawn
Friedman
Lazarus
Mark Kille
>You speak of semantics again. This newsgroup is not about that, hence,
>discussions of such do not exist here, get it?
You obviously have no grasp of a word I said, get it?
Question for those who believe that syntax can be completely removed from
semantics:
1) Bill likes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
2) Bill astonishes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
In (1) and (2), who does the pronoun "he" refer to?
Psychological studies have repeatedly shown that in (1), "he" is taken to refer
to the person who is liked, while in (2), "he" is taken to refer to the
person who is astonishing.
Obviously, it is possible to get different interpretations: the syntax allows
(in fact, requires, if you follow government-binding theory) that "he" freely
refers to either Bill or Bob in both sentences.
Yet, in practice, this does not happen.
Structure is apparently not enough to establish meaning.
Does anyone have an explanation for this linguistic phenomenon which does not
fall back on semantics?
--
Wilf Leblanc
>dtr...@netcom.com (Lazarus) writes:
>>You speak of semantics again. This newsgroup is not about that, hence,
>>discussions of such do not exist here, get it?
>You obviously have no grasp of a word I said, get it?
>Question for those who believe that syntax can be completely removed from
>semantics:
>1) Bill likes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
>2) Bill astonishes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
>In (1) and (2), who does the pronoun "he" refer to?
>Psychological studies have repeatedly shown that in (1), "he" is taken to refer
>to the person who is liked, while in (2), "he" is taken to refer to the
>person who is astonishing.
>Obviously, it is possible to get different interpretations: the syntax allows
>(in fact, requires, if you follow government-binding theory) that "he" freely
>refers to either Bill or Bob in both sentences.
>Yet, in practice, this does not happen.
>Structure is apparently not enough to establish meaning.
>Does anyone have an explanation for this linguistic phenomenon which does not
>fall back on semantics?
Oh yeah, I do, but I'm not going to tell you because that would
be contravening the stated goal of this group which is discussions
of a tactically syntactical nature.
-
bq
[...]
Francis Dolarhyde
>
>Does anyone have an explanation for this linguistic phenomenon which does not
>fall back on semantics?
There is a misunderstanding of my posts because there is a
misunderstanding of the stated goals of this newsgroup. I know that
syntax ans semantics are intertwined. But we are not dealing with
"syntax" in its basic form. Tactical syntax is quite different. If you
have any questions about it, please refer to the FAQ. "Linguistic
phenomena" are fine and dandy, but, again, we are trying to find
something entirely different here. I recently posted a couple of
pseudo-flames here and got a few people riled up in a "tactically
syntactical" manner. They were offended by structure, not meaning <as
the posts themselves were meaningless>. I hope you understand, this is
not a flame, it is just a stated response. No insult to you is intended.
Lazarus
DAVID LAWRENCE NICOL
>
>Question for those who believe that syntax can be completely removed from
>semantics:
>
>1) Bill likes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
>2) Bill astonishes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
>
>In (1) and (2), who does the pronoun "he" refer to?
>Psychological studies have repeatedly shown that in (1), "he" is taken to refer
>to the person who is liked, while in (2), "he" is taken to refer to the
>person who is astonishing.
>Obviously, it is possible to get different interpretations: the syntax allows
>(in fact, requires, if you follow government-binding theory) that "he" freely
>refers to either Bill or Bob in both sentences.
>Yet, in practice, this does not happen.
>Structure is apparently not enough to establish meaning.
>
>Does anyone have an explanation for this linguistic phenomenon which does not
>fall back on semantics?
no, noone does, and I think it aught to be possible to form a euclid-style
proof that no such (valid) explanation exists. Although doing so is out of
my field (which is fantasizing about the board-analyzing IGS client I'm
going to write which will be so impressive that Thinking Machines Corp.
will beg me to relocate to Boston so I can work with them in their own office
space), I think that if we can agree on a set of axioms about language, that
is, definitions of a meta-language (see, I read Martin Gardner for kicks),
proving that no valid explanations of the aforementioned linguistic phenomenon
which do not fall back on semantics exist should become trivial.
For my next trick, I'd like to share with you all an exchange that was the
beginning of a long and interesting friendship:
Other, pointing at my watch: "Is that the time?"
Me, communicating effectively on several levels: "No, 'that' is a pronoun."
***************************************************************************
Apathy is the enemy! Team, set phasers on "care!"
david Lawrence Nicol
dni...@cstp.umkc.edu
happy new year
DAVID LAWRENCE NICOL
> [...] I recently posted a couple of
>syntactical" manner. They were offended by structure, not meaning <as
>the posts themselves were meaningless>.
>[...]
>
>Lazarus
Were not! They carried meanings such as "You may argue with this should
you be so inclined." Of course the more levelheaded left them alone --- you
have no proof that the "riled up" which you observed was genuine!
One needs both a shield and a lance to tilt effectively!
Even at a windmill, which is only level(id est at right angles and parallel
with the ocean's average surface on a calm day) for instants of zero duration!
And Don Quixote fictionally kicks back watches the wheels turn round and
round along with the real ghost of John Lennon. How they love to watch
them roll...
David
Francis Dolarhyde
>
>> [...] I recently posted a couple of
>>pseudo-flames here and got a few people riled up in a "tactically
>>syntactical" manner. They were offended by structure, not meaning <as
> ^^
>>the posts themselves were meaningless>.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>[...]
>>
>>Lazarus
>
>Were not! They carried meanings such as "You may argue with this should
>you be so inclined." Of course the more levelheaded left them alone --- you
>have no proof that the "riled up" which you observed was genuine!
The words I posted were meaningless. The message was far different than
you percieved. I did not crave arguement. I wanted anger. If you read
the previous responses to my posts, you will discover that the responses
were indeed of anger rather than of responsive dialectic. Do you see?
>
>One needs both a shield and a lance to tilt effectively!
>
>Even at a windmill, which is only level(id est at right angles and parallel
>with the ocean's average surface on a calm day) for instants of zero duration!
>
>And Don Quixote fictionally kicks back watches the wheels turn round and
>round along with the real ghost of John Lennon. How they love to watch
>them roll...
>
>David
But in the Nether regions of the Great North East Void, Windmills often
face inland where they can catch the winds that blow down from the
mountains and channel the sea water back to the underground
desalinization factories so the mountain workers may drink fresh water
from the sea. An overland route has yet to be found to supply this area
with much needed soy and rice products from near-by Mordovia.
Lazarus