Quote: Archibald A. Hill (maybe)

“A speaker of the language should be able to pronounce correctly any sequence of letters that he may meet, even if they were previously unknown, and secondarily, to be able to spell any phonemic sequence, again even if previously unknown.” -Archibald A. Hill, distinguished U.S. linguist. I have not been able to confirm the source….

Continue Reading

Semantic Analysis and meaning

Again I’m quoting Paul Ziff’s Semantic Analysis: 41. […] Consequently, if my contention about meaning is correct, then the first ‘do’ in ‘Please do not do it!’, unlike the second ‘do’, does not have meaning. This is testified to by the fact that generally the first ‘do’ in ‘Please do not do it!’, unlike the…

Continue Reading

Quote: Paul Ziff

[Discussing the type/token distinction or ambiguity] “I shall not in general try to eliminate these ambiguities by explicitly stating which sense is intended. Sometimes both senses are intended, sometimes not. In general the context is sufficient to indicate what is meant. I shall be more specific only when there is need to be so; if…

Continue Reading

Negating sentences in english

Abstract I invent and explore a terminology about degrees of sentences, I explore how to negate sentences and sentence parts in english, I distinguish between verbs that can be used in sup-sentence parts and verbs that cannot, I discuss some problems with the verb “ought”, and lastly I explore the relationship between this terminology and…

Continue Reading

Language, the modal fallacy and the symbolic representation of a conditional

“[W]hat follows from a true premiss must be true” (The Problems of Philosophy, p. 60, link) Wrote Russell as an example of a principle of logic that is more self-evident than the inductive principle. If we were to formalize this we would perhaps write it like this: E1. □[([∀P][Q∧Q⇒P])→P]1 Or perhaps just just in propositional…

Continue Reading