> And Rosta scripsit:
> >
> > Ed Heil
>
> > > That's just one of my favorite cogsci/linguistics topics. The way
> > > that language is not so much an encoding of meaning as a device
> > > intended to elicit meaning in a suitably prepared brain. It doesn't
> > > "contain" meaning any more than a rider's spurs "contain" a horse's
> > > speed.
> >
> > While accepting the first three paragraphs and the spuriousness of the
> > container metaphor, I would content the implication that a language is
^^^^^^^contest
> > not an encoding of meaning. I think that's exactly what it is: a set
> > of sentences, where a sentence is pairing of a meaning (an
> > underspecified proposition) and an underspecified sound (or gesture).
> > Modulo a certain amount of polysemy in the word "language", language
> > is a code, not metaphorically but literally.
>
> I think that Ed is using "meaning" in its pragmatic sense (the meaning
> of a message is just its effect on the listener) whereas And is using
> it in some other sense, which perhaps is more common, but which I cannot
> clearly understand.
I know you claim not to understand this other sense, but I can't
understand your claim. Surely it is part of the specification of English
that _dog_ means 'dog'? Else how do we hear [dOg] and understand 'dog'?
--And.