Nik:
> And:
> > I'd rather say I want to distinguish the grammar from the
> > encyclopedia,
> > with the border between them crossed by Sense relations from
> > syntax to encyclopedia..
> >
> > Our remaining differences are irresolvable. If the encyclopedia is
> > invisible to the grammar, as I hold, then 'semantics' must eb part of
> > syntax. You on the other hand, are engaged in thoroughgoing
> > modelling of the encyclopedia in which grammar is a fully
> > integrated nondiscrete part.
>
> If you take an instrumentalist view of grammar, as you do, being as
> how you're a
> non-mentalist, why would you need to take an a priori stand? It's your job to
> model what you see as restrictively as you can. The coherence of the model and
> scope of the data will determine how much encyclopedic information you end up
> including.

The a priori stand is part of the initial definition of the object of study:
the rules that generate the set of sentences of the language, each sentence
being a pairing of a 'sound' (= phonetically interpreted form) and 'meaning'
(= ideationally interpreted form). Under this definition I don't see where
the encylopedia would fit in.

--And.