Springer:
Thanks for the Triad and Pierce references. It will take some time and a
bit of experimentation before I can appreciate this enough to contribute
comments. At first glance, the approach appears well-suited to a Subjective
classification of attributes that are Qualities. If so, that
Springer,
This sounds interesting but the language is a little too academic for me,
without looking up and reading other sources. Perhaps you could expand a
little in future for a more general audiences,
Not withstanding that, you triggered me to mention my long term goal of
building a
One of the most interesting issues is rarely focused on. HOW NEW PUBLIC
WORDS EMERGE?
The internet is awash with observers and commentary AFTER THE FACT. But
actual grasp is very rare.
Its like thousands can explain AFTERWARDS. But actually none of them DID
it.
So WHO did?
I'd be VERY
Hans,
I'd love to hear more about what you're *doing* with this idea of a
dimensional array.
As my prior post hints, there's a great deal of resonance between your
big-picture musings and Charles Peirce's logic.
However, Peirce argues that the conceptual structures you end up needing
will be
The OED ISSUE is an interesting one in English speaking countries. The
thing is vast.
One is somehow obligated to acknowledge some peasant in 1734 mentioned that
"a gnome by twilight" is a "gnomo".
TT, ;-)
On Monday, 8 June 2020 16:39:20 UTC+2, HansWobbe wrote:
>
> I think it's time I started
Interesting!
Couple of comments ...
1 - At render level ere some "single characters" (even if compound at bit
level---
I think that's a fragment too far) items also, in a sense ICONS?
My point being that "characters" as "icons" have SEMANTIC VALENCY that
transcends a mere part of
6 matches
Mail list logo
