Scientific theory of aspect - To Rolf

Daniel Riaño danielrr at retemail.es
Sat Jan 13 06:08:36 EST 2001


Rolf Furuli wrote:

>I would say that meaning is neither found in the individual word nor in the

>context, but meaning is connected with concepts in the minds of living
>people. This meaning can be communicated because a group of people has the
>same presupposition pool and the same linguistic conventions. So the
>letters and sounds have no intrinsic meaning, they are just codes, and the
>context (written or spoken) neither produces meaning, it just has the role
>of a pointing finger. But the meaning is connected with the concepts in the
>minds which are signalled by the words. Many substantives signals just one
>concept, others signal two, and a few more than two concepts.

[a large part of this interesting answer snipped above and below]


	Many thanks to Rolf for this thoughtful answer. I can't say I 
share all the terms and path of the reasoning, but I am not sure if 
part at least of the divergence isn't just a matter of terminology: 
If one word (in your sense of "word") signal one concept in the mind 
of both the speaker and the addressee, Can't we say that such word do 
possess meaning (within a collectivity). Or, to take another code: a 
round-shaped traffic signal of certain dimensions placed on the spot 
by an authorised institution, containing a certain combination of 
figures and colours, doesn't certainly have a meaning? (even if it 
points to a concept in the people's mind; maybe a complex concept 
that  didn't exist previous to their knowledge of the traffic signal 
value?
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel Riaño Rufilanchas
Madrid, España



More information about the B-Greek mailing list