Message-ID:

"It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler

tech / sci.lang / Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16355&group=sci.lang#16355

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4f2e:0:b0:635:90c4:c851 with SMTP id fc14-20020ad44f2e000000b0063590c4c851mr1083qvb.0.1687614006728;
Sat, 24 Jun 2023 06:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:a409:b0:1b0:1225:ffb9 with SMTP id
m9-20020a056870a40900b001b01225ffb9mr931600oal.7.1687614006455; Sat, 24 Jun
2023 06:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 06:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.225.126.138; posting-account=7i9CYgkAAAD0b2D1lL-NyeNZeE4r5Wir
NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.225.126.138
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com> <qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com> <1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
From: ranjit_m...@yahoo.com (Dingbat)
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 13:40:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

by: Dingbat - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 13:40 UTC

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:
> > So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
> dealt with in the distant future.
>
> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
>
FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16356&group=sci.lang#16356

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:199b:b0:3fd:dfa0:12b3 with SMTP id u27-20020a05622a199b00b003fddfa012b3mr6266008qtc.7.1687619649671;
Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:7701:b0:1a9:bc16:64fb with SMTP id
dw1-20020a056870770100b001a9bc1664fbmr6253393oab.1.1687619649485; Sat, 24 Jun
2023 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.53.39.189; posting-account=tXYReAoAAABbl0njRzivyU02EBLaX9OF
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.53.39.189
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com> <qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com> <1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com> <0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
From: gramma...@verizon.net (Peter T. Daniels)
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:14:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2476

by: Peter T. Daniels - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:14 UTC

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

> > > So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
> > Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
> > linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
> > dealt with in the distant future.
> > In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
> > and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
> > and the Interpretive Semanticists.
>
> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?

Those are inseparable.

Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable..

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16357&group=sci.lang#16357

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 10:26:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com>
<qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com>
<1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com>
<0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:26:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="599fb4ceb96b3f867ee33a691be6f2e8";
logging-data="166329"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tgAJuTPFkfoAu75AH3zHK"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fbiwj450sda01H9Zbv3wE2sdDhQ=
In-Reply-To: <90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US

by: olcott - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:26 UTC

On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:
>
>>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
>>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
>>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
>>> dealt with in the distant future.
>>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
>>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
>>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
>>
>> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
>> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
>
> Those are inseparable.
>
> Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.

I am not talking about that.

What time is it (yes or no)?
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
Will your answer to this question be no?

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16358&group=sci.lang#16358

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:9d4:b0:62d:f382:9f45 with SMTP id dp20-20020a05621409d400b0062df3829f45mr3386338qvb.6.1687622955911;
Sat, 24 Jun 2023 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:bcd5:0:b0:39e:ab58:1604 with SMTP id
m204-20020acabcd5000000b0039eab581604mr4362962oif.0.1687622955727; Sat, 24
Jun 2023 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 09:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.53.39.189; posting-account=tXYReAoAAABbl0njRzivyU02EBLaX9OF
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.53.39.189
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com> <qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com> <1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com> <0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com> <u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
From: gramma...@verizon.net (Peter T. Daniels)
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:09:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

by: Peter T. Daniels - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:09 UTC

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:26:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

> >>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
> >>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
> >>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
> >>> dealt with in the distant future.
> >>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
> >>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
> >>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
> >> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
> >> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
> > Those are inseparable.
> > Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.
>
> I am not talking about that.
> What time is it (yes or no)?
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
> Will your answer to this question be no?

Are you unfamiliar with the past century-and-a-bit of linguistic philosophy?

And for Antiquity, check out the "Cretan liars' paradox."

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16359&group=sci.lang#16359

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 11:13:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com>
<qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com>
<1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com>
<0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>
<u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
<29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="599fb4ceb96b3f867ee33a691be6f2e8";
logging-data="176154"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RyDugFn7HdOL/9S7oqB1W"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rPh2i1kweb0uDf+QbS213jlJe60=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com>

by: olcott - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 16:13 UTC

On 6/24/2023 11:09 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:26:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:
>
>>>>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
>>>>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
>>>>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
>>>>> dealt with in the distant future.
>>>>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
>>>>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
>>>>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
>>>> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
>>>> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
>>> Those are inseparable.
>>> Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.
>>
>> I am not talking about that.
>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>> Will your answer to this question be no?
>
> Are you unfamiliar with the past century-and-a-bit of linguistic philosophy?
>
> And for Antiquity, check out the "Cretan liars' paradox."

I am asking within the field of semantics in linguistics or the
philosophy of language are there things that are called: "incorrect
questions"?

To the best of my knowledge even the Liar Paradox is not called an
"semantically incorrect statement". To the best of my knowledge the
category of "semantically incorrect statement" has never been defined.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<7accd3c8-636e-4249-b71b-8d0f334c4e95n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16360&group=sci.lang#16360

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:48c2:0:b0:62f:f1a6:d3cc with SMTP id v2-20020ad448c2000000b0062ff1a6d3ccmr3488225qvx.12.1687645265329;
Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:768b:b0:1a9:c186:3988 with SMTP id
dx11-20020a056870768b00b001a9c1863988mr5640680oab.6.1687645265159; Sat, 24
Jun 2023 15:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.53.39.189; posting-account=tXYReAoAAABbl0njRzivyU02EBLaX9OF
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.53.39.189
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com> <qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com> <1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com> <0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com> <u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
<29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com> <u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7accd3c8-636e-4249-b71b-8d0f334c4e95n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
From: gramma...@verizon.net (Peter T. Daniels)
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 22:21:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3904

by: Peter T. Daniels - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 22:21 UTC

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 11:09 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:26:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

> >>>>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
> >>>>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
> >>>>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
> >>>>> dealt with in the distant future.
> >>>>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
> >>>>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
> >>>>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
> >>>> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
> >>>> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
> >>> Those are inseparable.
> >>> Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.
> >> I am not talking about that.
> >> What time is it (yes or no)?
> >> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
> >> Will your answer to this question be no?
> > Are you unfamiliar with the past century-and-a-bit of linguistic philosophy?
> > And for Antiquity, check out the "Cretan liars' paradox."
>
> I am asking within the field of semantics in linguistics or the
> philosophy of language are there things that are called: "incorrect
> questions"?
>
> To the best of my knowledge even the Liar Paradox is not called an
> "semantically incorrect statement". To the best of my knowledge the
> category of "semantically incorrect statement" has never been defined.

This is not my area of interest.

I have never heard (of) either of those phrases.

It seems you want to put them as new names on old concepts.

You'd need a good reason for doing that.

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<u77r0n$7hq9$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16361&group=sci.lang#16361

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 17:33:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <u77r0n$7hq9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com>
<qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com>
<1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com>
<0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>
<u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
<29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com>
<u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>
<7accd3c8-636e-4249-b71b-8d0f334c4e95n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 22:33:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad041cb4949b6fefade5e3ce06d37af4";
logging-data="247625"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wyunXQ9rn3YbGyLKOuOtY"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u+Nv2bvzSw/E0LM/bwG12/5ULmw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7accd3c8-636e-4249-b71b-8d0f334c4e95n@googlegroups.com>

by: olcott - Sat, 24 Jun 2023 22:33 UTC

On 6/24/2023 5:21 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 11:09 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:26:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
>>>>>>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
>>>>>>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
>>>>>>> dealt with in the distant future.
>>>>>>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
>>>>>>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
>>>>>>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
>>>>>> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
>>>>>> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
>>>>> Those are inseparable.
>>>>> Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.
>>>> I am not talking about that.
>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>>>> Will your answer to this question be no?
>>> Are you unfamiliar with the past century-and-a-bit of linguistic philosophy?
>>> And for Antiquity, check out the "Cretan liars' paradox."
>>
>> I am asking within the field of semantics in linguistics or the
>> philosophy of language are there things that are called: "incorrect
>> questions"?
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge even the Liar Paradox is not called an
>> "semantically incorrect statement". To the best of my knowledge the
>> category of "semantically incorrect statement" has never been defined.
>
> This is not my area of interest.
>
> I have never heard (of) either of those phrases.
>
> It seems you want to put them as new names on old concepts.
>
> You'd need a good reason for doing that.

This is probably totally outside of your area of interest:
It turns out that some very important undecidable decision
problems such as the halting problem are really nothing more
than contradictory, thus incorrect questions.

This is much more of a philosophy of language rather than
semantics of linguistics thing.

Most people consider philosophy meaningless drivel that has
no useful purpose. In the cases that I investigate is boils
down to the actual essence of what truth itself is.

If key subsets of truth can be made computable then dangerous
disinformation can be stopped dead in its tracks before it
has any chance to get started.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<6498ea0a-ee4b-4ad0-87e7-655fd0cd88f7n@googlegroups.com>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16366&group=sci.lang#16366

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:190f:b0:765:a9f8:959b with SMTP id bj15-20020a05620a190f00b00765a9f8959bmr847qkb.13.1687710933976;
Sun, 25 Jun 2023 09:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:62c6:0:b0:39c:4616:ef8d with SMTP id
w189-20020aca62c6000000b0039c4616ef8dmr6430645oib.10.1687710933392; Sun, 25
Jun 2023 09:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 09:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <u77r0n$7hq9$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=108.53.39.189; posting-account=tXYReAoAAABbl0njRzivyU02EBLaX9OF
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.53.39.189
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com> <qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com> <1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com> <0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com> <u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
<29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com> <u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>
<7accd3c8-636e-4249-b71b-8d0f334c4e95n@googlegroups.com> <u77r0n$7hq9$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6498ea0a-ee4b-4ad0-87e7-655fd0cd88f7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
From: gramma...@verizon.net (Peter T. Daniels)
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 16:35:33 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 5142

by: Peter T. Daniels - Sun, 25 Jun 2023 16:35 UTC

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2023 5:21 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2023 11:09 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:26:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:

> >>>>>>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
> >>>>>>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
> >>>>>>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
> >>>>>>> dealt with in the distant future.
> >>>>>>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
> >>>>>>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
> >>>>>>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
> >>>>>> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
> >>>>>> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
> >>>>> Those are inseparable.
> >>>>> Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.
> >>>> I am not talking about that.
> >>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
> >>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
> >>>> Will your answer to this question be no?
> >>> Are you unfamiliar with the past century-and-a-bit of linguistic philosophy?
> >>> And for Antiquity, check out the "Cretan liars' paradox."
> >> I am asking within the field of semantics in linguistics or the
> >> philosophy of language are there things that are called: "incorrect
> >> questions"?
> >> To the best of my knowledge even the Liar Paradox is not called an
> >> "semantically incorrect statement". To the best of my knowledge the
> >> category of "semantically incorrect statement" has never been defined.
> > This is not my area of interest.
> > I have never heard (of) either of those phrases.
> > It seems you want to put them as new names on old concepts.
> > You'd need a good reason for doing that.
>
> This is probably totally outside of your area of interest:
> It turns out that some very important undecidable decision
> problems such as the halting problem are really nothing more
> than contradictory, thus incorrect questions.
>
> This is much more of a philosophy of language rather than
> semantics of linguistics thing.
>
> Most people consider philosophy meaningless drivel that has
> no useful purpose. In the cases that I investigate is boils
> down to the actual essence of what truth itself is.
>
> If key subsets of truth can be made computable then dangerous
> disinformation can be stopped dead in its tracks before it
> has any chance to get started.
> --
> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

You ae correct. This is not linguistics. Please go away.

Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?

<u79r2f$hgot$1@dont-email.me>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=16367&group=sci.lang#16367

copy link Newsgroups: sci.lang

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 11:47:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <u79r2f$hgot$1@dont-email.me>
References: <zpqdnZcEdJbVFVDJnZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<40d331e8-5b12-43ff-955b-d48e4de49742@googlegroups.com>
<qOudnWvHUKsx_FPJnZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c50a6e0c-af91-4561-9b28-854833f29b19@googlegroups.com>
<1oydnXplHduf7lPJnZ2dnUU7-QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0b6e217-8c18-4fb5-8390-fd9372391f38@googlegroups.com>
<0e03266f-5a51-41cc-9286-969e46529506n@googlegroups.com>
<90a81007-5a75-408b-bcbb-3921eb60fd87n@googlegroups.com>
<u771us$52dp$1@dont-email.me>
<29725f46-2ad9-4e05-b1f8-ce2ca5b18f98n@googlegroups.com>
<u774ng$5c0q$1@dont-email.me>
<7accd3c8-636e-4249-b71b-8d0f334c4e95n@googlegroups.com>
<u77r0n$7hq9$1@dont-email.me>
<6498ea0a-ee4b-4ad0-87e7-655fd0cd88f7n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2023 16:47:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad041cb4949b6fefade5e3ce06d37af4";
logging-data="574237"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vsEvk7MJLimllqZSCvdkU"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hAwyOK0nC/U1RzQGJ9vZCJFhR5I=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <6498ea0a-ee4b-4ad0-87e7-655fd0cd88f7n@googlegroups.com>

by: olcott - Sun, 25 Jun 2023 16:47 UTC

On 6/25/2023 11:35 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2023 5:21 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:09 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 11:26:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:14 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:19:42 AM UTC+5:30, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-5, Peter Olcott wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> So Chomsky only focused on syntax and ignored semantics...
>>>>>>>>> Of course. He was firmly in the mainstream of American Descriptivist
>>>>>>>>> linguistics, which regarded Meaning and semantics as something to be
>>>>>>>>> dealt with in the distant future.
>>>>>>>>> In the 1960s, his students began to deal with semantics within his framework,
>>>>>>>>> and there soon emerged two distinct schools, the Generative Semanticists
>>>>>>>>> and the Interpretive Semanticists.
>>>>>>>> FWIW, this webpage on The Linguistic Wars says 'Generative Semanticists'.
>>>>>>>> Generation of what? Of syntax from semantics?
>>>>>>> Those are inseparable.
>>>>>>> Harris's book is excellent, and the review of the 2nd ed. is very favorable.
>>>>>> I am not talking about that.
>>>>>> What time is it (yes or no)?
>>>>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." ?
>>>>>> Will your answer to this question be no?
>>>>> Are you unfamiliar with the past century-and-a-bit of linguistic philosophy?
>>>>> And for Antiquity, check out the "Cretan liars' paradox."
>>>> I am asking within the field of semantics in linguistics or the
>>>> philosophy of language are there things that are called: "incorrect
>>>> questions"?
>>>> To the best of my knowledge even the Liar Paradox is not called an
>>>> "semantically incorrect statement". To the best of my knowledge the
>>>> category of "semantically incorrect statement" has never been defined.
>>> This is not my area of interest.
>>> I have never heard (of) either of those phrases.
>>> It seems you want to put them as new names on old concepts.
>>> You'd need a good reason for doing that.
>>
>> This is probably totally outside of your area of interest:
>> It turns out that some very important undecidable decision
>> problems such as the halting problem are really nothing more
>> than contradictory, thus incorrect questions.
>>
>> This is much more of a philosophy of language rather than
>> semantics of linguistics thing.
>>
>> Most people consider philosophy meaningless drivel that has
>> no useful purpose. In the cases that I investigate is boils
>> down to the actual essence of what truth itself is.
>>
>> If key subsets of truth can be made computable then dangerous
>> disinformation can be stopped dead in its tracks before it
>> has any chance to get started.
>> --
>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> You ae correct. This is not linguistics. Please go away.

It is very tangentially semantics of linguistics yet directly
head on philosophy of language. When I first posted this question
February 1, 2015 that did not occur to me.

In the mean time I did find a Philosophy of language forum.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Subject	Author
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	Dingbat
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	Peter T. Daniels
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	olcott
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	Peter T. Daniels
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	olcott
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	Peter T. Daniels
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	olcott
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	Peter T. Daniels
Re: Is the concept of [incorrect question] new?	olcott