We talk about logic. It's possible to be wrong about what is logical, so does that imply a logic-to-word direction of fit?

Some illogical language use...



If it's a duck, then it's not a rabbit. If it is a rabbit, then it is not a duck.

So is it both a duck and not a duck?

What could (p & ~p) say?

Only that something has gone wrong. It's the conclusion of a reductio.

As such, it might lead to the conclusion that one of our assumptions is wrong; or, it might lead to the conclusion that our way of setting out what is going on is muddled.

"Direction of fit" is about word-to-world or world-to-word; but you would apply it to sentence-to-logic and logic-to-sentence.

Do we change our spelling to fit the word, or the word to fit our spelling? Is the direction of fit spelling-to-word or word-to spelling?

Neither your question, nor mine, are sensible.

Do you think spelling, as a set of rules for language use, is descriptive or prescriptive?

If it's possible to witness misspelling, then it has to be prescriptive.

True? — frank

Do you think spelling, as a set of rules for language use, is descriptive or prescriptive?

If it's possible to witness misspelling, then it has to be prescriptive.

True? — frank

Spelling rules are prescriptive. :brow:

I'm struggling to get some concepts straight. I need more percolation.

If you're associating a lack of logic with malfunction, then you could be saying that rules of logic are descriptive rules of language use.

Or could you be saying they're prescriptive and the enforcement is a communication breakdown?

Fit doesn't have to be restricted to word and world. We can look at rule-to-world, world-to-rule, world-to-telling and so forth.