[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DTD Notation raises a question
- From: Colin Muller <email@example.com>
- To: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:23:45 +0800
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 11:05:11PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Colin Muller scripsit:
> > The first two, perhaps (one could perhaps arrive at a contorted
> > exception), but:
> > "Subacute spongiform encephalopathy, named after ... the name of which
> > gives a concise description ..."
> > "Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, named after ... the name of which
> > illustrates the common practice in the medical research world of ..."
> Yes, but that is (hidden) quotation. You might as well argue that
> "George" and "George" are distinct, given the contexts:
> George is the subject of this sentence.
> This sentence uses George as the object of a verb.
I see it more as a difference between denotation and connotation. Even
without the sentence-completions I suggest, those "quotations" are
implicit (and potentially useful) connotations; and connotation is a
part of most discourse. In any case, the two partial sentences I
provided are certainly "contexts" in which the terms are not
interchangeable. Your original claim was that they were
interchangeable in any context.
Unimportantly to this question, but interestingly enough, "George"
and "George" may well not be interchangeable in any particular pair of
sentences - and that because of denotation, not even connotation - if
one wants people to understand which George is being referred to. You
may need to add a namespace ...