Re: Universal grammar
- From: "Rob Freeman" <groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Oct 2006 19:51:19 -0700
Tak To wrote:
Rob Freeman wrote:
Tak To wrote:
In any case, I think "a universal representation of meaning"
exist, which is the collectively state of neurons in one's brain.
It is just that it is not that convenient to "use".
Well, that is true in a way. The point is it now seems what we
have in our heads is not a representation in the sense we have
been looking for.
Obviously this begs for the definition of "representation of
meaning".
That is the problem at issue, yes.
I have the impression that you are conflating several different
issues here.
What different issues do you think I am conflating, Tak?
-Rob
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Tak To
- Re: Universal grammar
- References:
- Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: groups
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Hans Aberg
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: groups
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Tak To
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Tak To
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Rob Freeman
- Re: Universal grammar
- From: Tak To
- Universal grammar
- Prev by Date: Re: Pseudo-assimilation, Latin to Spanish
- Next by Date: Re: laji/lase rubbish!
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Next by thread: Re: Universal grammar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|