You don't really believe (I hope) that the English language is 'a set of symbols,' on all fours with the logical spinach one finds in e.g. Frege, Russell, and elementary logic books. If you did, the assignment 'put the following [some text with ands and ors and thens and maybes] into symbolic notation would be (I think this is the right term), otiose. You say that 'All boys...' in English (e.g.) has an ambiguity of scope that can be 'easily demonstrated (disambiguated?) in logical notation.This is simply false. The ordinary language ambiguity makes it impossible to know—without prompting—how to express it in 'logical
notational' terms. That is, until the ambiguity is removed in ordinary language, i.e., whether 'Every boy loves some girl.' means 'Every boy loves some girl, namely, Alice.' or 'Every boy loves some girl or other.' must be decided before anything can be put into the 'notation' of e.g. Russell and Whitehead. The two disambiguated sentences need to be logically-notationally different, and which one is to be preferred is not decided by logical notation I'm surprised you now want to take back, on Grice's behalf, what he's reported as saying to Strawson. Surprised and puzzled because I thought it was part of a fictional Grice's counter to something Wittgenstein is falsely said to have believed. Robert Paul, channeling Lewis Carroll
Re: the former, since the English language IS a set of symbols, "Horses run swiftly" is already_symbolic_. Re: the latter, I agree with R. Paul that there is a scope ambiguity, etc. -- and that it can be easily demonstrated in logical notational terms.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html