Re: Logical?

 --- "Mike S." wrote:

> In order to be logical, a language is required to have
> an unambiguous syntax (i.e. all phrases are bound), an
> unambiguous lexicon (i.e. no homonyms are allowed; the
> morphology self-segregates), and unambiguous pragmatics
> (i.e. prescribed literalism--the speaker must say what
> he means; words are interpreted at face value).
This makes me very curious, especially if you place this
subject within the context of another thread, namely the
colour discussion.

It appears to me, that "meaning" is not just a set of fixed
milestones. Just like colours, all meanings seem to be part
of one big continuum, instead. Every culture, every language
picks its own points from that continuum and attaches names
to them in the form of words.

In other words, whether or not two words can be considered
homonyms, is culturally determined.

I'm wondering how loglangers handle this problem. Or don't
they consider this a problem at all?

Jan


=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Replies