Re: Concept_sitting

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