[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
W. E. Perry scripsit:
> If what I
> secretly believe is as you assert, it is so secret that I have never been aware
> of thinking it, let alone arguing it.
Evidently. :-)
> > > The element content itself (the ides of
> > > March, 710 A.U.C.) if instantiated as a date by an accurate application of
> > > the AUC process as redefined by Caesar himself must yield a result of the
> > > fifteenth day of the third month of the 710th year.
>
> At the point at which you learn this fact, you have instantiation.
In fact I am probably content never to learn the Roman date at all, and leave
that as mere uninterpreted text, because I trust that I am being supplied
with an equivalent Gregorian date that I do know how to instantiate.
Analogously, if I am supplied with a treaty in English and French, the
two versions being equally authentic, I am free to disregard the one I
do not understand in favor of the one I do: in particular, no one is bound
by any provisions that occur in only one of the versions.
> They are one
> and the same outcome. The specific annotation which you proposed needs the
> operation of a different process (as you concede below) to elaborate (at least
> potentially) different semantics. And in this case the semantic outcome is
> different: one process yields the 15th, the other yields the 13th.
But that is a mere difference in labeling. Internally I may represent
either of them quite differently, perhaps as Julian day 1705426.
> > A different process, yes, but need it yield a different product?
>
> It could, and in the example you gave, it does.
Only if you are committed to the notion that you need distinct internal
representations for the products of distinct calendars, which to my mind
is about like needing distinct representations for Cicero and Tully
(them again!).
> I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the conflict.
I see no conflict.
> Different syntax or
> different process and you yield (at least potentially) different semantic
> outcome.
But it's that "potentially" that has to be cashed out for your argument
to have practical value. I think you have hit on a particularly rocky
soil for this particular argument, and there are far better ones out there.
A local process, other than a purely lexical one, that considers 2+2
to be something other than 4 will simply not stand up in court.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
