In a message dated 12/9/12 12:44:36 PM, [email protected] writes: "just because the listener or reader has no knowledge of the referent does not mean he or she cannot produce a notion in response to the word."
I wrote: A shepherd in the Andes "could conjure effectively no notion at all > (and > > certainly nothing "informational")" if someone utters to him the sound, > "Cleopatra". > I didn't mean he couldn't hear the utterance, couldn't determine if the speaker is female or male, etc. I consciouslessly depended on my phrases "effectively no notion" and "nothing informational" to convey the shepherd wouldn't "understand" the utterance. But Michael is justified in saying the shepherd would certainly come away with some notions or other.
