Re: Universal grammar

Tak To wrote:
groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]

But you are right. I think the issue is very closely related to that of
a general theorem prover in maths.
...
(I have probably missed it -- where did the OP said they were related?)

You didn't miss it. I was drawing the inference from the fact he needs
to find universals to implement his theorem prover.

Actually, I didn't think it wasstill considered possible to build
a general theorem prover in maths.

Correct.

(and I am personally convinced that is for the same reason we
have not been able to find universals of language or meaning.)

And the reason is?

Because I think there are many distributions which cannot be reduced to
logic, Tak.

-Rob

.