It all came through fine on Mozilla Firefox in Dresden, although it does have a lot of little red lines. Kate Sullivan
-----UrsprC<ngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> An: [email protected] Verschickt: Mo., 24. Mrz. 2008, 18:59 Thema: Re: Feedback from listers needed on this test. I use MS Outlook Express ver. 6 to manage my email. Your post below has broken paragraphs in the "preview" window, but if I open the email into its own window the text has mostly solid paragraphs. About three lines seem to have exceeded some maximum length and resulted in a dangling word or two.B B An example of this is:B B > "works" in Ohio but not in the Andes because it "has meaning" only where > English isB > regularly spoken. But why is that? Why doesn't it "have meaning" in aB B (I don't know how teh above will appear.)B B Mike MalloryB B ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>B To: <[email protected]>B Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 9:42 AMB Subject: Feedback from listers needed on this test.B B > I've been whining to Databack that postings arrive with the paragraphB > shattered by line-breaks so I get a long line, then a line with two words, > then aB > long line, then a one-word line. But it now occurs to me that it may not > beB > Databack's doing, but, rather, the result of a weakness in my AOL server. > So I nowB > ask listers to tell me if they receive this posting with solid paragraphs, > orB > paragraphs shattered by inapt line breaks. (The paragraphs at the very > bottomB > have line breaks because they were not keyboarded by me, but copied from aB > received posting.) Many thanks to those who report back -- CheerskepB >B > Derek quoted Cheerskep:B >B > "If I utter "doggy" to a shepherd in the remote Andes, no picture of a dogB > will arise in his mind. But if 'doggy' "has a meaning", why doesn't thatB > happen? Because he hasn't been exposed to repeated association of the > sound,B > "doggy", with real dogs that his parents pointed at when they said the > word."B >B > Derek then responded:B >B > "Isn't the answer to this just that a word has meaning only in its > relevantB > speech community?"B >B > But, for openers, this makes the unwarranted assumption that there exists > anB > entity, or property, or action that Derek believes he "refers to" when he > saysB > 'meaning'.B >B > And he is required to "account for" the fact that this "meaning" of a wordB > exists only in a "relevant speech community". Derek would say that 'doggy'B > "works" in Ohio but not in the Andes because it "has meaning" only where > English isB > regularly spoken. But why is that? Why doesn't it "have meaning" in aB > non-relevant speech community?B >B > It's reasonable to ask Derek to describe as precisely as he can what he > hasB > in mind when he says, "a word has meaning" -- in particular what he has in > mindB > with the word 'meaning' and the word 'has'.B >B > In my previous posting, '"Signs", "meanings" and associations', I argued > thatB > the alleged "referent" of 'meaning' is a chimera, there are no such > things. IB > claimed to "account for" everything we think of as "communication" withoutB > ever having to cite a "meaning". An atheist might say that to assume theB > existence of "meanings" is as unwarranted as assuming the existence of > souls orB > guardian angels.B >B > My argument also "accounts for" why 'doggy' draws a blank in the Andes: > TheB > shepherd was never subjected to the repeated juxtaposition of the > utteranceB > "doggy" and a parent's pointing at a real dog -- thus affecting an > association inB > the shepherd's mind. Everything about communication that Derek would > requireB
