From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!burrhus!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Nov 19 11:10:21 EST 1991
Article 1343 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!burrhus!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <1991Nov16.121439.5507@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 91 17:14:38 GMT
References: <rreiner.689649195@yorku.ca> <BRe6aB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> <1415@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 56
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1415@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> 
jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier) writes:

>In <BRe6aB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> 
rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

RC:
>>Is there such a thing as "formal semantics?"  Where would I find a
>>text on this discipline?

JDC:
>One place to look would be _Formal Philosophy_ by Richard Montague.

This is one of the worst places to start, as Montague's papers are
well-unreadable even for an expert; moreover, the book is long out of
print.

Try Dowty, Wall, and Peters' "Introduction to Montague Semantics", or
Keenan and Faltz' "Boolean Semantics for Natural Languages", or, more
elementary, Martin's "Elements of Formal Semantics".

JDC:
>Another would be _Situations and Attitudes_ by Barwise and Perry.

Situation theory has the dubious distinction of having been conclusively
refuted by G\"odel and Church thirty years prior to its inception.  See the
above authors utterly unsuccessful attempt to refute the refutation in
Martinich's excellent anthology "The Philosophy of Language"; see also
Church's, Tarski's, and Davidson's much better papers reprinted therein.
Also avoid the transformational grammarians' attempts at semantical
theorizing; above all, read Martin's book, and the recently translated
Gamut, "Logic, Language, and Meaning".

JDC:
>There are hundreds of other books and articles, but the above deal
>most directly with issues that arise in semiotics.
>-- 
>John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
>HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
>Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052


'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139                                     :
: (617) 661-8151                                                     :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'


