Sean, (01)
I'm glad that you found the 3-way distinction helpful, but I want
to emphasize three very important points: (02)
1. It is possible to have syntax by itself without semantics or
pragmatics. That would be a purely uninterpreted notation
with no meaning other than to create strings of symbols. (03)
2. It is possible to have syntax and semantics without pragmatics.
That would be a pure description of something, such as a list
of observed data with no indication of what to do. (04)
3. For any practical language of any use in engineering, it is
essential to have all three: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. (05)
SB> I shall keep to Pragmatics in future, believing as I do that
> Semantics is a useful heuristic.... (06)
No. You cannot do pragmatics without having syntax and semantics. (07)
It's impossible to say anything without syntax. It's impossible
to refer to anything without semantics. And it's impossible to
do anything pragmatically without being able to make statements
(syntax) that refer to something (semantics). (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|