[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I don't know how far folks want to carry this but it looks like a pretty good distance, so:
Some good reference works on reference (the objects of reference and the distinction between talk about physical entities and objects of reference and things non-material as objects of reference) consider be Gottlob Frege's "On Sense and Reference," Betrand Russell's reply to Frege, "On Denoting," and of course, Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and chapter two of his book, _Word and Object_. For the diehards, I'd add to the list George Bealer's book _Concept and Quality_. For the last, a familiarity with the notations in symbolic logic would be handy.

* * * * * * * * * * *
November too cold? Too hot? How would you like to spend part of November in San Francisco?
The 2006 Aquatic Gardeners Association Convention is coming. Expect details to be posted soon at http://www.aquatic-gardeners.org/ 

----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz>
To: aquatic plants digest <aquatic-plants at actwin_com>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:29:39 AM

Jerry Foster wrote:
> I know you really do understand. It's called inference.
> The connection is made because the SC paper talks about a "phosphate 
> limitation strategy". If they and described an ozone limitation strategy 
> than PMDD would be thought of in that light. Those who talk about it in 
> those terms probably haven't kept up with Tom's (and others) various 
> rants on the subject.

"PMDD" is a concrete noun, and any name given to an idea or concept is 
an abstract noun. Concrete nouns cannot be abstract nouns - the two are 
mutually exclusive.

I know English grammar is the pinnacle of boring for most, but keep in 
mind that it is just really formalizations of rules most of us 
intuitively know already. As an example to illustrate the utility of 
grammar rules, imagine you heard someone say, "I rescued the drowning 
boy to the edge of the pool." You would know that was wrong, but could 
you tell the speaker *why* it was wrong? Unless you were trained in 
grammar you probably wouldn't say, "intransitive verbs cannot take a 
direct object," and sure, the person who was present that did know that 
might be a pointy-headed nerd (or not), but that is the actual reason 
the sentence is incorrect.

"Oh, for Pete's sake," you might be thinking, "why on Earth does this 
matter in a planted aquarium group?" I believe that playing fast and 
loose with language is the source of some of the confusion that 
newcomers experience. If I just arrived here and got the impression that 
PMDD was a strategy for controlling algae, I would fully expect that I 
had to make my own trace mix if I wanted to control algae. By deduction 
I would also reason that commercially prepared micronutrients were not 
useful in any program designed to control or eliminate algae. Neither of 
which is correct.

This is of course molesting a dead horse in the worst way, but I think 
it's an interesting discussion that sheds light on the strange 
linguistic processes at work in the hobby. Linguistics is not 
interesting for a lot of people, and that's ok. So far this has been a 
pleasant, if not off-topic, conversation.

Jerry Baker
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com