Dear David,
I have never used the words "uncancelable semantics," but you have. So I do
not "try to escape the labelling," I just say that your label does not fit
my work; it is a misunderstanding. You cannot label my work, and when I say
your label is incorrect, you say that I try to escape the labelling.
According to Websters, "scrupulous" means;
"1) having or showing scruples; characterized by careful attention to what
is right or proper;conscientiously honest and upright; 2 (a) careful of
details, precise, accurate, and correct; exact; (b) demanding, or
characterised by, precision, care, and exactness."
When I ask the question: "Is past tense an uncancelable part of the
WAYYIQTOL form?," I seek a scrupulous distinction between semantics and
pragmatics when I answer the question, and I use "scrupulous" as defined by
Websters.
You have several times accused me of not commenting on your objections, and
therefore I sent my previous post. From the point of view of my "scrupulous
distinction between semantics and pragmatics" your objections and examples,
such as the verb forms used with "yesterday" and "today" are basically
irrelevant, and that is the reason why I previously have not made any
comments on each of them.
I am not going out of steam. But when I now have stated why I have not
commented on all your examples, I do not see any purpose in continuing this
discussion.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.