Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Concept_sitting

From:Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>
Date:Monday, January 19, 2009, 0:48
I think what he means is that the illogicality of the sentence means no one
would think of uttering it unless he were consciously finding a time to say
it. It wouldn't appear naturally in a conversation, for example, but would
be contrived.
Eugene

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Erbrice <erbrice@...> wrote:

> It was clear for me that you did only speak in a mathematical point of view > and not about languages. > But, beeing totally ignorant in this domain (maths), it still unclear to > me what do you do mean when you say 'no speaker would naturally emit a > sentence like "this sentence is false"' > Aren't any sentence admitable as far as they are grammatically correct ? > > Le 17 janv. 09 à 11:59, Mark J. Reed a écrit : > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Erbrice <erbrice@...> wrote: >> >>> in the domain of languages, >>> which problem (s) could result from a statement refering to itself ? >>> >> >> First, I didn't say it was a problem for languages. I was just >> clarifying what Goedel actually did. >> >> It's a problem for mathematical formalisms, and therefore potentially >> for loglangs as well. For language in general, I'd say that such >> metareferentiality just enhances expressiveness. I do seem to recall >> that there are some theories of how human language works, mostly no >> longer current and somewhat reminiscent of those mathematical >> formalisms, which are invalidated by the existence of such statements. >> (Proponents of those theories would simply say that no speaker would >> ever "naturally emit" a sentence like "This sentence is false", so it >> doesn't count.) >> >> -- >> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> >> >

Replies

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Erbrice <erbrice@...>