Timeline for "... a thing is an English word only if it has meaning." – or is it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2016 at 16:13 | answer | added | user9166 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 1, 2016 at 14:02 | answer | added | Luís Henrique | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:45 | answer | added | user20153 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:37 | history | edited | Michael Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:37 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Of course, Hunter is not asserting a theory of meaning... The gist of the exercise is to convey the correct "meaning" of formal language : a formal language is completely specified by its syntatical rules (and thus it can be mechanizable): it can be fully "managed" without reference to any interpretation. Natural language is not so, because we cannot (better : it has no sense to) disregard meaning. | |
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:32 | history | edited | Michael Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:26 | history | edited | Michael Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 146 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:15 | history | edited | Michael Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 23 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 18:10 | history | asked | Michael Smith | CC BY-SA 3.0 |