| Author |
Message |
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:n3mmm1pnshlvragfceadbfauuh3kqbljmq@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:34:02 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Isaiah 66:1 (KJV)
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool...
Reading this literally we must infer the Lord has physical
characteristics sufficiently similar to that of humans that he will
relax by sitting with his feet resting on a footstool. Heaven must be
shaped for sitting on, and somewhere on this earth are the Lord's feet.
Given the rotation of the earth, the earth's orbit of the Sun, the Sun's
orbit of the centre of our galaxy, and the Sun's up and down motion with
respect to the galactic plane, the Lord must have very flexible legs.
The Lord might find greater relaxation by putting his feet on something
less mobile, unless, of course, he is using the earth as some sort of
exercise or massage machine.
I suspect a non-literal, figurative and metaphorical, interpretation is
likely to yield a much greater and more useful meaning.
Beware of literal interpretations.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
In this case it would seem so.
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be certain of |
God's intent?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:nj1nm19pr2c6d8i9govcqlcutsqj5aio6c@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:n3mmm1pnshlvragfceadbfauuh3kqbljmq@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:34:02 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else.
Isaiah 66:1 (KJV)
Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool...
Reading this literally we must infer the Lord has physical
characteristics sufficiently similar to that of humans that he will
relax by sitting with his feet resting on a footstool. Heaven must be
shaped for sitting on, and somewhere on this earth are the Lord's feet.
Given the rotation of the earth, the earth's orbit of the Sun, the Sun's
orbit of the centre of our galaxy, and the Sun's up and down motion with
respect to the galactic plane, the Lord must have very flexible legs.
The Lord might find greater relaxation by putting his feet on something
less mobile, unless, of course, he is using the earth as some sort of
exercise or massage machine.
I suspect a non-literal, figurative and metaphorical, interpretation is
likely to yield a much greater and more useful meaning.
Beware of literal interpretations.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
In this case it would seem so.
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be certain of
God's intent?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:44 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
|
What's that horrific metallic rending, clanging, sound?
Ah. It's the links of the Chain of Logical Reasoning coming disconnected
and collapsing in a heap (next to the Tower of Babel).
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:08 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:497nm1p7nmhlj3l4i7s1205fu4bofn803o@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
What's that horrific metallic rending, clanging, sound?
Ah. It's the links of the Chain of Logical Reasoning coming disconnected
and collapsing in a heap (next to the Tower of Babel).
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
From the point of view of ignorance anything can be made to seem
nonsensical. Imagine what calculus would look like to a person that
has not yet learned to count to ten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:11 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:nj1nm19pr2c6d8i9govcqlcutsqj5aio6c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be certain of
God's intent?
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
|
Given that you believe that there's an "esoteric meaning for the few
that can directly experience the truth of it, rather than having to
rely on words", why on earth are you trying to persuade us that the
words yoiu're quoting must be understood as literally true?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:51 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:il8nm15nlv788cdqpv8knij7jeinuep0qu@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:nj1nm19pr2c6d8i9govcqlcutsqj5aio6c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be certain of
God's intent?
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
Given that you believe that there's an "esoteric meaning for the few
that can directly experience the truth of it, rather than having to
rely on words", why on earth are you trying to persuade us that the
words yoiu're quoting must be understood as literally true?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
|
Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and are on the earth;
even in him |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:57 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:n5Oaf.77$xE.5@dukeread08...
| Quote: |
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:il8nm15nlv788cdqpv8knij7jeinuep0qu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:nj1nm19pr2c6d8i9govcqlcutsqj5aio6c@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be certain of
God's intent?
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
Given that you believe that there's an "esoteric meaning for the few
that can directly experience the truth of it, rather than having to
rely on words", why on earth are you trying to persuade us that the
words yoiu're quoting must be understood as literally true?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and are on the earth;
even in him
Also I was thinking that if this verse was evaluated objectively |
without the emotional attachment to preconceived notions that
the result might be an agreement based on the actual truth. Truth
itself is inherently unifying, but, only for those seeking the truth.
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:23 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:1bOaf.78$xE.11@dukeread08...
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:n5Oaf.77$xE.5@dukeread08...
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be
certain of
God's intent?
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
Given that you believe that there's an "esoteric meaning for the few
that can directly experience the truth of it, rather than having to
rely on words", why on earth are you trying to persuade us that the
words yoiu're quoting must be understood as literally true?
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather
together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and are on the
earth;
even in him
Also I was thinking that if this verse was evaluated objectively
without the emotional attachment to preconceived notions that
the result might be an agreement based on the actual truth. Truth
itself is inherently unifying, but, only for those seeking the truth.
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely
different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Tell me, Peter. When God communicates with you, is it while you are |
sleeping or just "under another influence"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:27 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:08:19 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:497nm1p7nmhlj3l4i7s1205fu4bofn803o@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
What's that horrific metallic rending, clanging, sound?
Ah. It's the links of the Chain of Logical Reasoning coming disconnected
and collapsing in a heap (next to the Tower of Babel).
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
From the point of view of ignorance anything can be made to seem
nonsensical. Imagine what calculus would look like to a person that
has not yet learned to count to ten.
Genesis 11 (KJV) |
[1] And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
[2] And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they
found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
[3] And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn
them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they
for morter.
[4] And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose
top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
[5] And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men builded.
[6] And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all
one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be
restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
[7] Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that
they may not understand one another's speech.
[8] So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of
all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
[9] Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did
there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence
did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
It seems that the Lord is not very keen on the idea of a standard
language with everyone able to understand everyone else. Unambiguity in
such a standard language might really switch him into a Cities of the
Plain mode.
Be careful out there Peter, be very careful!
But what do I know - I'm an agnostic.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:34 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Pat Durkin" <durk183@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message news:NqPaf.12825$tV6.2468@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:1bOaf.78$xE.11@dukeread08...
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:n5Oaf.77$xE.5@dukeread08...
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:46:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
In the other case, it yields the true meaning that God intended,
yet it would seem that he only intended this esoteric meaning
for the few that can directly experience the truth of it, rather
than having to rely on words.
With all due respect: you are guessing. You surely cannot be certain of
God's intent?
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
Given that you believe that there's an "esoteric meaning for the few
that can directly experience the truth of it, rather than having to
rely on words", why on earth are you trying to persuade us that the
words yoiu're quoting must be understood as literally true?
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and are on the earth;
even in him
Also I was thinking that if this verse was evaluated objectively
without the emotional attachment to preconceived notions that
the result might be an agreement based on the actual truth. Truth
itself is inherently unifying, but, only for those seeking the truth.
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Tell me, Peter. When God communicates with you, is it while you are sleeping or just "under another influence"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:37 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:5fgnm1peetl52cdmbbkq0nn850vn6vg7rq@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:08:19 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:497nm1p7nmhlj3l4i7s1205fu4bofn803o@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:16:14 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Its a mystical {union with God} thing. Once you have had
this experience, you gain an altogether different perspective.
What's that horrific metallic rending, clanging, sound?
Ah. It's the links of the Chain of Logical Reasoning coming disconnected
and collapsing in a heap (next to the Tower of Babel).
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
From the point of view of ignorance anything can be made to seem
nonsensical. Imagine what calculus would look like to a person that
has not yet learned to count to ten.
Genesis 11 (KJV)
[1] And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
[2] And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they
found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
[3] And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn
them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they
for morter.
[4] And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose
top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
[5] And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men builded.
[6] And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all
one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be
restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
[7] Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that
they may not understand one another's speech.
[8] So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of
all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
[9] Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did
there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence
did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
It seems that the Lord is not very keen on the idea of a standard
language with everyone able to understand everyone else. Unambiguity in
such a standard language might really switch him into a Cities of the
Plain mode.
Be careful out there Peter, be very careful!
But what do I know - I'm an agnostic.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
Isn't that a coincidence I am Not(agnostic) == Gnostic.
Not in the sense of the Gnostic myths, just the most literal
meaning of the term. There are believers, disbeliever's,
people who don't know, and people who know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:19 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
|
Indeed. What system do you use for deciding which of the many
"literal" interpretations is the correct one?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:05 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:cinnm119itoktg3u5tv6a113885mrmholq@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Indeed. What system do you use for deciding which of the many
"literal" interpretations is the correct one?
|
The short answer is the singular most literal one.
I am using methods from the mathematics of pure semantics to derive
singular most literal semantic meaning possible. Where there is only a
single most literal meaning derived, this one is considered to be the
correct one. There is quite often only a singular most literal meaning
derived. Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
| Quote: |
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:cinnm119itoktg3u5tv6a113885mrmholq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Indeed. What system do you use for deciding which of the many
"literal" interpretations is the correct one?
The short answer is the singular most literal one.
I am using methods from the mathematics of pure semantics to derive
singular most literal semantic meaning possible. Where there is only a
single most literal meaning derived, this one is considered to be the
correct one. There is quite often only a singular most literal meaning
derived.
|
"The mathematics of pure semantics"? Right.
And you don't find that rival interpretations similarly claim to be
the single (or singular) most literal? And you don't see any possible
hint of a contradiction in the juxtaposition of "single" and "most"?
| Quote: | Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
|
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:cinnm119itoktg3u5tv6a113885mrmholq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Indeed. What system do you use for deciding which of the many
"literal" interpretations is the correct one?
The short answer is the singular most literal one.
I am using methods from the mathematics of pure semantics to derive
singular most literal semantic meaning possible. Where there is only a
single most literal meaning derived, this one is considered to be the
correct one. There is quite often only a singular most literal meaning
derived.
"The mathematics of pure semantics"? Right.
And you don't find that rival interpretations similarly claim to be
the single (or singular) most literal? And you don't see any possible
hint of a contradiction in the juxtaposition of "single" and "most"?
|
What I mean by literal, is the meaning where no subjective interpretation
is permitted. What I mean by literal is taking the most common meaning of
each word (usually the first sense meaning in the dictionary) as its only
meaning. This involves completely shunning any possible idiomatic meaning.
The meaning of the sentence is entirely composed of the sum of the individual
meanings of its words. In other words this is a precise mathematical mapping
from the specification of the words to the derivation of the semantic meaning
of the sentence.
| Quote: |
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
|
I am much more a logician than a grammarian.
Try and provide a counter-example that can't be literally understood
to derive a single semantic meaning using the rules that I have specified
above.
| Quote: |
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in