On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Achim Schneider <bars...@web.de> wrote:
> Robin Green <gree...@greenrd.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:14 +0100 > > Achim Schneider <bars...@web.de> wrote: > > > > > Conal Elliott <co...@conal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > DRAFT version ___ comments please > > > > > > > Conal, please, PLEASE, never, EVER again use the word "meaning" if > > > you actually mean "denotation". It confuses the hell out of me, > > > especially the (I guess unintended) connotation that you analyse > > > the meaning of a particular instance's existence on a cosmic scale. > > > > It shouldn't confuse you. Using "means" for "denotes", and likewise > > "meaning" for "denotation", is correct English, and very common usage > > too. > > > (length . denotations) "to mean" > (length . denotations) "to denote" > > (read: "to denote" is more defined than "to mean") > > Following your argument through, we should talk kinda like "hey, we do > something with that thingy to do that-other thingy to that thingy > over there". 99% of my former teachers would tear you to shreds... in > mid-air (during lift-off). > > I can't talk about the whole of English usage, but I never saw > "meaning" in a mathematical context where "denotation" would work, too, > except in Conal's writings. > > > ...and that doesn't even include that my native language isn't English > but German, in which "to mean" nounificates using another object: > It translates to "Opinion" instead of "Denotation". > "deuten" (to intepret, to point) is a very well-defined concept in > German and doesn't like to be messed with. > The distinction is very clear in technical English but often disregarded in ordinary speech. http://consc.net/papers/intension.html is very informative. -gregg, your faithful half-baked philosophaster
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe