Just to further support Sergei's points (ontology is difficult
enough without mixing in folk-linguistics): (01)
>>SN: The original meanings of words are anything but sacred.
>
>
> PDM: Lucklily, in this world we can choose what is sacred to us, and what isnt
> (unless you want to deny me freedom of belief)
> (02)
Yes I would want to deny you freedom of belief when the
concern is with what we know about language and how it
works. You may choose to believe anything you want, for
example that the world is made of gorgonzola, and
you can even make that sacred for yourself, but I don't
think you'll find many people to talk to. Linguistics
and language is not an area where we know nothing and
so need to work by faith alone. (03)
The 'original meaning' of words is primitive folk-linguistics:
I don't know why such a phrase would be used on this
list. I don't know what semantics you want to give it:
I, as a linguist, would advise you not to try bothering. (04)
> luckly, in this world we can all have our view, except for given constraints (05)
I would agree, as long as under the 'given constraints' we
also include what we happen to know about various aspects
of the world, including language. Doing ontology
is not an excuse for forgetting about the rest of
science. I am frequently
somewhat aghast at the views of how language works that
appear on this list, but take John Sowa's point about
there being a whole bunch of people on this list from
very different backgrounds. I just wish that there'd
be half an attempt to restrict statements to areas
that at least the people writing their emails understand
well. (06)
John B (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|