Print

Print


Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I never meant to imply that they're completely unrelated --
> > indeed, there are highly related, but distinct notions.  I was merely
> > carrying on the generally accepted notion of the "autonomy of syntax":
> > a sentence like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" makes no
> > semantic sense whatsoever, but it makes perfect syntactic sense,
> > and is a well-formed English sentence.
> >

        It can make semantic sense for imaginative people who like metaphors.
The idea of "colorless green ideas" is not so nonsense for me (at least
it strikes a chord in my spirit) and I can surely "sleep furiously" :) .
So you see, saying that something doesn't make any semantic sense is
difficult, don't forget the metaphors and the use of context.

>
> Well, I'd say that the notion of "autonomy of syntax" is getting
> more and more challenged. (Also, linguistics is more fun with the
> meaning included, even if scientists from other disciplines will
> look down upon linguistics even more for being soft and squishy.)
>

        For me, it is obvious that syntax and semantics aren't autonomous, and
I wonder why it is a debated question. Even in a language where word
order is free enough (a purely syntactic feature), using a word order
instead of another generally convey a different meaning (a semantic
feature). Syntax is only the mean used to carry a meaning. I can't
understand why it could be seperated from semantics (even if the same
syntactic feature can carry many different meanings).

> Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org/~bsarempt

--
        Christophe Grandsire

        Philips Research Laboratories --  Building WB 145
        Prof. Holstlaan 4
        5656 AA Eindhoven
        The Netherlands

        Phone:  +31-40-27-45006
        E-mail: [log in to unmask]