[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology, Information Models and the 'Real World': C

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:26:51 +0200
Message-id: <465FD84B.8070106@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ingvar Johansson wrote:
> Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb:
>> If this does not make sense to you (which I believe is quite possible), 
>> I won't come, I am afraid, with a much better version.
> Everything makes sense, very much sense; and I have no further questions 
> :-)    (01)

very happy.    (02)

>> I think your 'sentence meaning' and 'used sentence meaning' could be 
>> somehow attached here, but I am not sure how (and if), and I am not very 
>> much convinced it is necessary.
> It can, whether or not it is necessary I am not the man to tell. 
> According to Pat, it is definitely not necessary in relation to IKL. He 
> says in one of his mails: "any discussion of propositions in English is 
> really beside the point for IKL". My distinction - whose background 
> question is "how to individuate propositions in e.g. English?" - can 
> easily be applied to your example. It means that the sentence 'no roses 
> are blue now' cannot be used to individuate a proposition in ordinary 
> English. Nonetheless, all utterances of the sentence have something in 
> common, call this its 'sentence meaning'. When such a sentence meaning 
> is used to assert something, the 'used sentence meaning' expresses a 
> proposition.    (03)

does make sense to me.    (04)

vQ    (05)

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    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>