What can we say about logical formulas/propositions?

Lionino

If we consider those laws of thought to be necessary for rationality, then they cannot be broken without incurring irrationality. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The ambiguity in the word 'rationality' shows up again, which is why I have edited the post you are quoting. So now it reads "as the necessary conditions/operations for my/human/any mind". In this sense, I don't think it can be broken, as the mind, definitionally, cannot operate outside of these conditions. And I think such a definition is materially true — there are indeed some limitations to our minds, we can't say our imagination is unbounded.

But, if I recall correctly, you said that in general laws of logic can be broken, as you even gave an example of breaking the law of noncontradiction. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. So, definitionally, we would find out those laws of logic would no longer be representative of laws of thought.

And as I said before, I still think the LNC overall articulates a law of thought, dialethias nonwithstanding. Same with paraconsistent systems and LEM.

To quote someone quoting Russell:

Identity: ϑ therefore ϑ;: a statement implies itself. But consider "this is the first time I have used this sentence in this paragraph, therefore this is the first time I have used this sentence in this paragraph" — Banno

Even though we have found a case where logical identity supposedly breaks, one may not argue that things are not what they are.

TonesInDeepFreeze

By syntactical, I mean grammatical.
— TonesInDeepFreeze — Lionino

When you add emphases (such as bold or italics) to my quotes, you should indicate that the emphases were added.

Lionino

Look it up. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ok.

A common contemporary definition of grammar is the underlying structure of a language that any native speaker of that language knows intuitively. The systematic description of the features of a language is also a grammar. These features are the phonology (sound), morphology (system of word formation), syntax (patterns of word arrangement), and semantics (meaning). — British Encyclopedia

The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics; grammar was one of the seven liberal arts. — Oxford Reference

The google dictionary simply cuts from the OR entry.

the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. — Google dictionary

Now, by the people who actually own the word:

grammaire
nom féminin
1. Ensemble des règles qui président à la correction, à la norme de la langue écrite ou parlée : Exercice de grammaire. — Larousse

Curiously, the BE article also has to take refuge in modern French words to express itself:

This led to the distinction that, in modern theory, is made with the terms signifiant (“what signifies”) and signifié (“what is signified”) — British Encyclopedia

One may wonder if they will be improperly used some decades from now, if they aren't already.

Syntax and grammar are synonymous in some contexts and nearly synonymous in others. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, synonymous for people who didn't actually study grammar.

Lionino

When you add emphases (such as bold or italics) to my quotes, you should indicate that the emphases were added. — TonesInDeepFreeze

When you quote people here, the original italics or bold are lost, so it is of common understanding that, when a quote features those, it is the quoter who has added them for a purpose.

TonesInDeepFreeze

for any law of thought there may be a system that denies the law, so any law of thought could be denied
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I imagine by 'law of thought' you mean 'law of logic' here? — Lionino

Right, my typo.

TonesInDeepFreeze

Everytime you say those well-formed phrases are syntactically correct, I agree. But they are not grammatically correct if the speaker thought/meant something other than what those words actually mean. So I cannot say they are grammatically correct. — Lionino

Now, you're arguing by reiteration of your claim. When it comes full circle like that more than once, rational discussion is diminished.

TonesInDeepFreeze

When you quote people here, the original italics or bold are lost, so it is of common understanding that, when a quote features those, it is the quoter who has added them for a purpose. — Lionino

What? You don't know how "[emphasis added]" works?

My original did not have bold. You added bold to my quote. When you do that, you should include a note that you added the emphasis. It is not up to the reader nor me to recall the peculiarities of the formatting processes of this site to then reason, "So the bold would have been lost if it were quoted, so if it appears, then it must have been added."

You just need to put in "[emphasis added"].

Lionino

↪TonesInDeepFreeze

The post you are quoting here is from 3 hours ago.

What? You don't know how "[emphasis added]" works? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I do that everywhere else. But that is how it goes here. In Rome like the Romans.

TonesInDeepFreeze

↪Lionino

Whether it was three decades ago or three seconds ago, it is not proper to display someone's quotes with emphases they didn't use unless you indicate that the emphases were added.

Lionino

↪TonesInDeepFreeze

I am not talking about that.

Everytime you say those well-formed phrases are syntactically correct, I agree. But they are not grammatically correct if the speaker thought/meant something other than what those words actually mean. So I cannot say they are grammatically correct.
— Lionino

Now, you're arguing by reiteration of your claim. When it comes full circle like that more than once, rational discussion is diminished. — TonesInDeepFreeze

My post there is from 3 hours ago. I was not reiterating anything.

Lionino

You can just click on the arrow to see what post the person is referring to instead of guessing.

TonesInDeepFreeze

Merriam [emphases added]:

grammar

: the study of the classes of words, their inflections (see inflection sense 2), and their functions and relations in the sentence

: a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection (see inflection sense 2) and syntax (see syntax sense 1)

: the characteristic system of inflections (see inflection sense 2) and syntax of a language

: a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language

syntax

: the way in which linguistic elements (such as words) are put together to form constituents (such as phrases or clauses)

: the part of grammar dealing with this

/

Nothing there about semantics or meanings. Rather, the structural aspects.

Especially in logic and philosophy of language, usually 'syntax' and 'grammar' are understood together. And semantics is different. Syntax concerns whether an expression is well formed. Semantics concerns the meaning of the expression.

But one of yours [emphases added]:

the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. — Lionino

Not that I trust "Google dictionary", but you proffered it. So:

The usual sense of 'grammar' is 'syntax'. But sometimes it includes semantics. So I will award myself the point that usually 'grammar' and 'syntax' are used the same. I will award you the point that sometimes semantics is included. But consider that in logic, usually a sharp distinction is made between syntax and semantics and use of 'grammar' would align with 'syntax' not 'semantics'. The quotes you give do indicate a more extended sense of 'grammar'. I haven't seen that sense in logic or philosophy of language, but if you insist. Meanwhile, you could have easily ascertained that 'syntax' and 'grammar' are commonly used interchangeably but that your context is different.

Oh wait, the Google entry is just the Oxford entry, so as you posted it redundantly, I will too:

The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics; grammar was one of the seven liberal arts.
— Oxford Reference — Lionino

TonesInDeepFreeze

You can just click on the arrow to see what post the person is referring to instead of guessing. — Lionino

I'm not talking about guessing what post was quoted. I'm talking about the fact that it is ridiculous to expect a reader to factor in the peculiarities of the formatting of quotes to know whether the emphasis was original or added.

A reader shouldn't have to click back to find out where the bolding came from. It is the responsibility of the quoter - not the reader and not the quotee - to indicate that the emphases were added.

tim wood

Is grammar not the rules which give us what can be said right or wrong in language? — Lionino

In a word, no.

In everyday discourse, people write "If ___, then" commonly.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
My point is that they write it wrongly. — Lionino

And bumblebees cannot fly. Can you see a difference between, "If you do x, I'll do y," and, "If you do x, then I'll do y"?

And can you recognize the difference between the rules of how the pieces move on a chessboard, and how the pieces are to be moved on a chessboard? Grammar is guidance and suggestion, nothing more. But not to be thereby dismissed. Bad grammar, as with bad behaviour at the chessboard, can get you thrown out.

So, unlikely as it seems, you apparently don't know what "rules" means, or "language" for that matter. Part of both, perhaps, but part isn't the whole. Stick to logic; you seem to know that well. Language, not so much.

TonesInDeepFreeze

My post there is from 3 hours ago. I was not reiterating anything. — Lionino

You're reiterating your claim as you made it at the start of this round.

So, I'll reiterate:

"Jack is happy" is grammatical even when the speaker misused the word 'happy' while thinking it meant 'doleful'.

We don't have to ask the speaker what he meant to check whether he knows the correct meanings of the words. We just have to look at the sentence to see that it obeys the formation rules for the language.

And, in logic, which I hope was the original context, the usual distinction is between syntax and semantics, and with 'grammar' sometimes mentioned rather than 'syntax'.

Now we're full circle more than three times at least.

TonesInDeepFreeze

Stick to logic; you [Lionino] seem to know that well — tim wood

He doesn't.

TonesInDeepFreeze

"The cat is black" and ask, "is that grammatical?" You don't track down the speaker and find out whether he knows the definitions of 'cat' and 'black'.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Of course. It doesn't mean however that it was grammatically correct. We assume it is because we assume the speakers know how to use words. — Lionino

No, we don't need to make any such assumption. You're just stipulating that out of thin air.
We might know nothing about who or what wrote an expression.

If I display a sentence on a piece of paper and leave it on the sidewalk, and you pick it up and read it, "The cat is black", then you recognize that as grammatical, no matter whether written by Shakespeare or a random word generating machine or an insane person who thinks 'cat' means 'screwdriver' and 'black' means 'wet'.

Suppose you have a job correcting school assignments, and you are never in the classroom, never met the kids, you just correct the papers. Then you don't know the vocabularies of the kids. You don't know which ones know the correct definitions of the words used. But you can still correct and grade the grammar. If you see, "The car engine is noisome", then you mark the sentence as grammatical, even though you don't know whether the kid knows that 'noisome' means 'noxious' and not 'noisy'.

Really, that is so plain that if you still refuse to understand it, then indeed you defy rationality.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Lionino

Curiously, the BE article also has to take refuge in modern French words to express itself:

It's a nod to Saussure (and his demonic, hyper-nominalist post-modern semiotics of destruction—as opposed to our Augustine and Co.'s virtuous and sure triadic semiotics of life).

English-speaking philosophers who embrace contemporary French philosophy have to be very careful to use the French, lest they commit a massive faux pas like pronouncing Derrida's "différance" with a French accent. This is embarrassing indeed. The whole point is that différance and différence are pronounced exactly the same, and so one can only tell the difference when looking at them on paper (the victory of the logocentric over the phonocentrism of Saussure's Grammar, which has now been deconstructed).

However, the idea that signs might have something to do with a res or referent is terribly naive, if not downright provincial. "Intent of the speaker?" In grammar?

Friend, surely you know that both the author and the utterer have been dead for decades now? It would be totalitarian, not to mention brutish to suppose that intent should be allowed to tell people how they should construct their meaning, or that the properties of res/signified should play any determinant role in shaping the meaning/dicible in some sign relation. After all, people are themselves just signifiers, nexuses of sign-based discourses.

TonesInDeepFreeze

"Rob have a piink horn on his forhead", syntax is fine — Lionino

The syntax is not fine. (1) 'have' should be 'has' (2) 'piink' is not a word (3) 'forhead' is not a word'.

Syntax checks. Are these words? Are the words in an allowed order based on their kind? Are the words in correct case, inflection, etc.

Semantics checks: What are the meanings of the words? What are meanings of the clauses? What is the meaning of the sentence?

Same with formal logic. Syntax cheks: Are these symbols of the language? Do the sequences of symgols form formulas? Are the sequences of formulas allowed as proofs according to the rules?

Semantics with formal logic: To what do the symbols refer? What are the truth values of the sentences based on the meanings of the symbols and subformulas?

TonesInDeepFreeze

You would say the first one is grammatically wrong, because 'criteria' is plural. Here is the problem: there are actually some people in the world whose first name is Criteria. — Lionino

I can't believe you stooped to such a sophomoric argument. Obviously, we consider a context in which we at least agree as to the kind of word. Your argument is horrible desperation.

And still it doesn't answer that the "The cat is black" is seen to be grammatical even if the author of the sentence is anonymous, and even if we don't know whether the author is a human being or understands anything about language, as the expression could have been randomly generated and only by luck came out grammatical.

For about the dozenth time:

If you show me "The cat is black" then I will mark it as grammatical, not matter where you got the sentence.

TonesInDeepFreeze

But, if I recall correctly, you said that in general laws of logic can be broken, as you even gave an example of breaking the law of noncontradiction.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes — Lionino

Which brings me back to my point that is sustained:

But if any law of logic may be also a law of thought, then there are laws of thought that may be broken too.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Instead, if a law of logic can somehow holistically and correctly express a law of thought, that law of logic cannot be broken. If it can, it is not longer a law of thought, as by the definition I gave above.
— Lionino

But, if I recall correctly, you said that in general laws of logic can be broken, as you even gave an example of breaking the law of noncontradiction. Moreover, if there is a single law of logic that can be broken, and that law of logic corresponds with a law of thought, then there is a law of thought that can be broken. Moreover, even that point is not required, since we know that people do break laws of thought. Though, of course, if a certain law of thought is required for rationality then it can't be broken without incurring irrationality. — TonesInDeepFreeze

TonesInDeepFreeze

I have edited the post you are quoting. So now it reads "as the necessary conditions/operations for my/human/any mind". In this sense, I don't think it can be broken, as the mind, definitionally, cannot operate outside of these conditions. — Lionino

People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely. But your point reduces to the tautological: the mind can't operate rationally without operating rationally. No one disagrees with that.

And so we've come around again full circle.

TonesInDeepFreeze

I still think the LNC overall articulates a law of thought — Lionino

That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether that law of thought can be broken. Yes it can. Of course, if we hold that it is required for rationality, then we may say it can't be broken rationally. But that doesn't refute that people break laws of thought often. Full circle again.

Lionino

Not that I trust "Google dictionary" — TonesInDeepFreeze

Merriam Webster is not reliable neither is it competent. Google dictionary isn't a dictionary, it works the same way Google does.

But one of yours [emphases added]: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, one of mine. Why did you ignore the very first one and most reliable? The "sometimes" there takes it from ancient grammarians who understood grammar, as today defined, to be about morphology and syntax. That has no business in today's linguistics, where semantics and phonology are very much fields. If semantics and phonology are not included in grammar, the word grammar has lost its sense. Where else are those two supposed to be included? It has to be grammar.

The usual sense of 'grammar' is 'syntax' — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is not. You insist on the most innane nitpicks on when it comes to mathematical and logical language. Now you want to insist on something that is categorically wrong by every single standard, including the reliable sources provided.

—

How can you insist that "grammar is syntax" when you even want to settle for the source that says that it categorically includes morphology, not just syntax?

Lionino

I can't believe you stooped to such a sophomoric argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

My "argument" is a demonstration that it is not just semantic correctness that suffers from not knowing the context around a sentence, but also morphosyntactic correctness. Considering you thought that adjective or adverb were a syntactic role and not a morphological one, you are absolutely in no position to judge what a good argument about grammar is or isn't.

Lionino

↪tim wood

I am not interested in your illiterate, monolingual ramblings about grammar. Spare yourself because I am not reading them.

Lionino

If you show me "The cat is black" then I will mark it as grammatical, not matter where you got the sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

For starters, every sentence is grammatical. Not every sentence is grammatically correct. It doesn't matter how you mark it, you don't know enough grammar to be grading language assignments.

Lionino

(1) 'have' should be 'has' — TonesInDeepFreeze

That is morphological, not syntactic.

(2) 'piink' is not a word — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is a misspelt word. It has nothing to do with syntax.

(3) 'forhead' is not a word' — TonesInDeepFreeze

Same thing as above.

Are the words in correct case, inflection, etc. — TonesInDeepFreeze

English has no morphological cases. And those have nothing to do with syntax.

Lionino

Unless anyone here wants to show an iota of knowledge of Greek, or at the very least of French, I will discard all your unwarranted opinions on grammatical matters and hear it as it is: "bar bar bar bar".

TonesInDeepFreeze

Merriam Webster is not reliable neither is it competent. — Lionino

I have found Merriam to be good, especially unabridged, but some deterioration over the years. I read all of yours. I mentioned the others for emphasis.

The usual sense of 'grammar' is 'syntax'
— TonesInDeepFreeze

It is not. — Lionino

From definitions you posted yourself.

/

If I were to nitpick, it would be a whole other thing. Being careful to state things about logic accurately so that false conclusions about are not drawn is not nitpicking.

↪Lionino

What can we say about logical formulas/propositions?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions