Robert Paul wrote: "That there 'is not and cannot be an answer' to how a correspondence is possible between statements (sentences, propositions, judgments) and an alleged 'non-linguistic entity,' viz., in the ordinary language of detectives, lawyers, various parties to various disputes and negotiations, a fact, seems to fly in the face of plain facts, to use an expression on which philosophers do not hold the copyright. 'You say that you were in Pittsburgh when Smith was murdered, but this does not correspond to the facts,' says Inspector Quine." This is not quite right. When X says "I was in Pittsburgh when Smith was murdered" and Inspector Quine says "No, that is not true", the conflict is not between the sentence provided by X and a fact but what the sentence proposes to be true and another proposition. There is nothing wrong with the sentence and it would be nonsensical for Inspector Quine to object to the sentence. Rather, Inspector Quine objects to what is claimed to be true, some proposed state of affairs. In addition, what Inspector Quine relies on to rebut X's alibi is evidence that depends on testimony and witnesses. In other words, and it couldn't be otherwise, X is caught out in a false claim by other true claims. At no point do we encounter this mythological being, the 'non-linguistic entity', that dances through the dreams of so many philosophers. Robert Paul wrote: "It's strange that people could get along at all before the advent of metaphysical semantics." Nah. Nothing strange about the fact that only the sick need medicine. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html