Paola, (01)
> At first glance I would have thought that you and Pieter S. share
> the same front, I wouldnt have thought that there could be so
> many 'differences' in your viewpoints (02)
As I said in my note, I had more sympathy with the search for
a "one true natural logic" during the 1970s, when the idea of
formal semantics for natural language was still fresh. But
today, even the people who were in the forefront of that
approach have become disillusioned with the idea. (03)
I think that Seuren's approach is *one* interesting version
of logic for *one* of the many kinds of Wittgensteinian
language games that can be played with natural languages. (04)
But I was very critical of his assumptions that there could
be any such thing as a one, true, ideal logic for NLs. I
have no objection to anyone who says "Here is a cute little
logic that I just cooked up based on my own intuitions." (05)
But I was highly skeptical about his claim that "intuition"
is the basis for deciding which kind of logic is natural. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|