You're mostly correct about the word symbols (barring onomatopoeic words such as bang hum clipclop boom hiss howl screech fizz murmur clang buzz whine tinkle sizzle twitter as well as prefixes, suffixes and derived wordforms which all allow one to derive some meaning). However you are NOT correct about NUMBERS, mathematical formulaes etc. Though they are abstract, a lot of their MEANING (semantics) is contained in their notation. Give me the binary number 1001011001 and I can immediately tell you its predecessor, int(log2()), whether it's even or divisible by (decimal) 256. Which is exactly why some among us like formal systems so much. As an aside, I remember once speculating/thinking/making a start about a language whereby the meaning (or rather 'code') of any word would be reflected in its notation/representation... it started off with a commitment to a rather unwieldy ontology. Think Dewey-system for words but also including verbs, adjectives and other word categories. That was 20-odd years ago yes I was quite naive in those days ;-) Jean-Paul
>>> "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/01/07 3:38 AM >>> Symbols are ABSTRACT. Numbers included. Entirely abstract in relation to the signified. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
