[Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning

[Rob Freeman]

On 9/13/07, John F. Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>
> > doesn't any combination of symbols define a "logic" of its own?
>
> ...the short answer is "No!"
>
> The longer answer is that logic is intimately connected with
> the distinction between what is true and what is false about
> the domain of discourse -- usually some aspect of the real world,
> but possibly some abstract or imaginary world.


OK, then doesn't any _grammar_ define a logic of its own?

Remember the ad-hoc grammatical pattens found by syntax in the model I'm
suggesting all reflect meaningful regularities in a corpus (e.g. "strong" =
"black" or "strong" != "black"). They are only ad-hoc in the sense they
select between contradictory "truths".

> To cut to the chase a little, in going from an idea of syntax
> > based on fixed grammatical patterns to an idea of syntax based
> > on ad-hoc generalizations, haven't we brought syntax into much
> > closer correspondence with the idea of meaning associated with
> > Wittgenstein's "games", as described in your own article:
>
> Not unless you are prepared to specify the details of a completely
> new Wittgensteinian theory of logic


Perhaps I have misunderstood your article. Were you not presenting
Wittgenstein's games as an ad-hoc form of logic?

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20070913/694cc26d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora