On 10 Feb 2005 at 0:09, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 10 Feb 2005, at 12:04 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 9 Feb 2005 at 23:58, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > > >> On 09 Feb 2005, at 10:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > >> > >>> Physics has no necessary *musical* significance, just has grammar > >>> has no signficance in the *meaning* of any particular speech or > >>> written utterance. > >> > >> This is so patently, obviously, demonstrably false that if you > >> continue to assert it, I don't think there's much point in > >> continuing the conversation. Grammar -- and I don't mean > >> "schoolmarm grammar," I mean "combinatorial grammar" -- is > >> absolutely integral to meaning. Grammar is the *only* thing that > >> distinguishes the meaning of "Dog bites man" vs. "Man bites dog." > > > > Grammar enables the construction of message, yes. > > > > But it doesn't control the meaning conveyed. > > No, it absolutely does. Let me try one last time: > > "Dog bites man." > > "Man bites dog." > > What's the difference? Same three words. Different meaning. What > accounts for the difference?
The fact that you've switched two nouns within precisely the same grammatical structure. > Grammar. Grammar controls meaning. Grammar *encodes* meaning. And you're not changing the grammar -- you're just exchanging one noun for another in constructions that are grammatically identical. In other words, you've changed the content while retaining the same grammatical structure. Congratulations! You've just made my point! -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
