Rolf:-
> I object to the label "uncancelable semantics" since this is not a term
> used in linguistics, and it may have connotations that prevents the
> reader from understanding my method. It may even give the reader the
> impression that I do the very opposite what is the case.
David:-
>OK, I'll drop the term in preference for your own "uncancellable
>intrinsic meaning". (I still think that this equates to "uncancellable
>semantics", but if you don't think so I'll stick to the longer version
>"uncancellable intrinsic meaning".)
Just looking at it, David did not say ``Ah ha! Now I get it.''
He said, ``Ok, I'll use your label.'' There's a huge difference
between the two. Unless there is a common understanding of
the terminology the debate is going to go nowhere.
Bill Rea, ICT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea at canterbury.ac.nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.