My last post today, but tomorrow I hope to retrieve R. Paul's three or four recent messages on things and comments. He is trying to reply to Julie Krueger, >Where is Speranza? I was in the bathroom, and R. Paul provided an excellent reply in the interim, with which I notably disagree, in every sentence, or even, clause. >Language first, logic third. But cfr. Grice, "If you can't put it in symbols, it's not worth saying" cited in the obit for Sir Peter Strawson, to Strawson's credit, who is said to have offended Grice by retorting: "If you CAN put it in symbols, it's NOT worth saying". E.g. when R. Paul considers, "Horses run swiftly; ergo horses run. Try to put it in symbols". I thought he was actually suggesting that our A+ student, E. Yost, should put that in symbols. Instead, he was enthymematically suggesting, "And you'll fail". Which is too authoritarian and pessimistic to even consider seriously. R. Paul won't accept that Aristotle's logic is sillygistic. He tried to bring in Descartes for good measure, "Cookies dough argue some". Try to put _that_ in symbols. Cheers, J. L. Speranza Author of "Author" of "Logic of Conversation" and "Logic and Conversation"