[lit-ideas] Re: How elementary, elementary?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:17:40 +0100 (BST)
--- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >
> --- Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > "The cat is on the mat" -- elementary
> > Donal McEvoy writes in reply to R. Henninge:
> > Are you claiming that that a name like "cat" that
> > can be analysed in terms of
> > other names (eg. leg, head, tooth) can be an EP?
>
> A cat is not a 'name.'
What? You may be sure I meant the term 'cat' is a name of the object cat? Is
this not true? Why?
>Further, a cat cannot be
> analysed simply in terms of a sum of its bodily parts.
Where did I claim this? The question is whether it is an elementary term or
name and how is it? And if not what is.
> Mr. McEvoy is using fancy vocabulary and shortcuts
> like "EP" to cover for superficial and flawed
> analysis.
No "analysis" is perhaps more superficial and flawed than making broad,
opinionated comments like this one without any real argument to substantiate
them.
Is OK saying EP is "fancy vocubulary" or just a "shortcut"? And in either
case how does this bear on W's use of the term "elem.prop": mere fancy vocab
or shortcut?
OK's post is devoid of anything like real argument or analysis.
> O.K.
No, it is not.
Donal
London
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
