[betty boop]

I note with amusement the arrival of many dictionary definitions as if to circumvent my previous suggestion about not yielding the rules of engagement which include the control of the dictionary?

And likewise, that is with convivial amusement, may I note that people demanding dictionaries as the sole authoritative arbiter on any question whatsoever are very likely the very people who should be prevented from getting anywhere near a dictionary? :^)

For what they propose to do with the dictionary is: reduce reality to words alone. Totally hollowed out words at that: They have been stripped of their experiential component.

We've read our Rosen. He well illustrates this problem by citing David Hilbert's magnum opus, the attempt to reduce the universal natural language of mathematics — number theory here — to its syntactical basis only.

You'll recall from Rosen's presentation that all natural languages have two basic constituents: syntax and semantics.

Syntax by and large refers to the rules governing the use of the language; IOW its grammar. The "rules of the road" of that language, so to speak.

Semantics, however, always refers to the meaning being conveyed in language. The communication of meaning is the reason that language exists in the first place.

So I'm amazed that a world-class mathematician would even try to "reduce" the semantical part of language to the syntactical element only.

Had he succeeded, of course, language could be thoroughly "digitized" and made compliant to processing by human-built machines.

One imagines that such as Hilbert and Russell were saying to themselves: Semantics is just too problematical to have to deal with, in a computerized world. So find a way to "simulate" it.

But then fortunately Gödel showed up, and put an end to this nonsense.

And the rest is history, still unwritten....

You are such a blessing to me, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you ever so much for your wonderful essay/posts, this one and others on this thread!

[Alamo-Girl]

For what they propose to do with the dictionary is: reduce reality to words alone. Totally hollowed out words at that: They have been stripped of their experiential component.

So very true! And how appropriate to bring Rosen's analysis of Hilbert's failed attempt to slay semantics.

Thank you oh so very much for all of your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

[kosta50]

And likewise, that is with convivial amusement, may I note that people demanding dictionaries as the sole authoritative arbiter on any question whatsoever are very likely the very people who should be prevented from getting anywhere near a dictionary?

If we can't depend on the uniform meaning of words how can communication be possible? By "touchy-feely"? We can't make up our own definition for every word, and use words as we see fit, according to our measure, as long as it fits our narrow agenda.

Words are meant to be used for clear and accurate exchange of ideas, and vocabulary standardization is done precisely for that purpose. Otherwise we will be talking right past each other, as seems to be the case with some who choose to define words their own way.