Dick:
> >So do we all agree that we have these 3 types of rule:
> >
> >A. Purely syntactic.
> ## = dependency and other relations between co-occurring rules.
>
> >B. Sense relations from syntax to encyclopedia: i.e. rules saying "Sense of
> >X is 'X'"
> ## = sense relations between words and other nodes (typicall not words -
> but remember that metalanguage puts the grammar itself into the
> encyclopedia!! E.g. the sense of "the word DOG" is DOG.)
>
> >C. Purely encyclopedic.
> ## = relations between things that have nothing to do with language.
>
> Yes I agree that there are all these kind of 'rules' - plus others, of
> course (e.g. relations between words and non-linguistic concepts which are
> not their senses, most obviously concepts for the typical user - e.g.
> between BONNY and Scot).
Okay, but setting aside style, sociolinguistics, and so on, the rules
that have to do with meaning are only of type B, right?
--And.
|