[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Ed Cherlin: > On Tuesday 21 January 2003 10:00 am, And Rosta wrote: > > John: > > #And Rosta scripsit: > > #> Agnosticism isn't possible with synonymy. Either you believe two > > #> words have the same sense, or you don't. In this instance, they > > #> didn't. But I do > > Arrant nonsense. I can easily believe that a lexeme doesn't have the same > meaning as itself (in different contexts) I hold a lexeme's sense (or senses, if a lexeme may have multiple senses) to be independent of context. > and I can easily be unaware of the > meaning of a word, and unable to tell whether it is a synonym of some other > word. So they are de facto nonsynonymous. You don't have to know the meanings of the words to have or lack beliefs about their synonymy. It is like having the belief that two people do or don't have the same age. Whether or not you know their ages, you either do believe that they have the same age, or you don't. > Furthermore, when two words have substantial but not complete overlap > of meaning, I can answer the question, "Are they synonyms" by saying "It > depends". There are many possible theories of synonymy, and I don't know a > priori which one is appropriate to a given discussion. > > This statement is based on a theory of meaning known as pragmatism, which > held, in its original form, that many useless arguments can be avoided by > noting that people use the same word with different meanings, and that > negotiation over definitions is more productive than fiat. > > You may hold another theory, but you can't tell me that I don't believe in > mine First of all, I agree. Second, if you heed your own advice we can save disagreement, since I hold that synonymy is the belief that two lexemes have the same sense, and that senses are independent of context. What is relevant to the discussion we've been having is synonymy-as-I-define- it, and if you disagree on my use of the term 'synonymy' to express this meaning then we can save argument by agreeing on mutually acceptable terms. > > #I'm not sure whether "you don't" means "you believe they have different > > #senses" or merely "you ~ believe they have the same sense" > > > > I'm saying that they amount to the same thing, if (as I say) synonymy > > is a linguistic rule that says "the sense of word X = the sense of word > > Y". I have such a rule for 'Wolfram' and 'Tungsten'. If you lack such a > > rule, then X and Y aren't synonyms, even though their senses may be > > extensionally equivalent > > Most Americans don't know the word Wolfram, so they can't know whether or not > it is a synonym for Tungsten. Ergo most Americans don't believe that _wolfram_ and _tungsten_ are synonyms. > Ingorance has nothing to do with belief, or > with the meanings of the words I would have thought ignorance has a great deal to do with belief, and with the meanings of words. > > #> * Synonymy exists: we can have the knowledge "word X and word Y have > > #> the same sense (whatever the sense is)" > > Under some theories of meaning, but not all > > > #But this seems to be true iff we believe it, or more operationally, terms > > #are synonymous for me iff I use them interchangeably > > > > Yes > > No. The phrase "synonymous for me" is not synonymous with "synonymous" There doesn't seem much point in debating theories of meaning or definitions of synonymy if it isn't addressed to the issue of how Lojban should deal with de dicto. --And.