Re: LUNATIC again
|From:||JOEL MATTHEW PEARSON <mpearson@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, November 5, 1998, 1:41|
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> > Here I find the term "model language" useful and appropriate. A model
> > language is and is not a language in the same way that a model airplane
> > is and is not an airplane.
> Hmm, I'm not sure what a model airplane is. Does it necessarily fly?
> All the ones I know of (see in the park, etc.) actually do fly, but is
> that a *necessary* property of the class?
> It seems to me that a non-flying model airplane would be as much an
> airplane as a teddy bear is a real bear, whereas an airplane that actually
> flies is a real airplane whether small or not.
Actually, it was this kind of slipperyness that I had in mind when I
suggested the analogy. To me, the problem seems similar to the question
of whether a conlang is a language or not - a question to which I have
no real answer. My philosophy is: When you can't solve a problem, reduce
it to some other problem and call it a day. :-)