From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wupost!emory!iccdev!gwinnett!depsych!rc Tue Nov 19 11:09:32 EST 1991
Article 1254 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wupost!emory!iccdev!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <BRe6aB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 9 Nov 91 14:14:46 GMT
References: <rreiner.689649195@yorku.ca>
Lines: 15

rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner) writes:
> I agree with your general sentiment--that folks doing semiotics are
> blundering around in the dark due to lack of the tools needed to turn
> the lights on--but I don't agree that the only relevant tools are
> computational.  A little study of formal semantics would go a long way
> towards getting semioticians out of the hole they are digging.

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

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.com
Midtown Medical Center |    gatech!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


