It's a nod to Saussure — Count Timothy von Icarus

Even if it is, those words existed before Saussure. They were normal words of the French lexicon before Saussure turned them into jargon.

From the definitions you posted yourself. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nothing in my post includes the equality of syntax and grammar.

I have found Merriam to be good, especially unabridged, but some deterioration over the years. — TonesInDeepFreeze

A good circus perhaps.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/womyn
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/POC
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folx

Merriam-Webster, incompetent as it is, also was not taught basic geography during school, thinking that Africa equals black: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/black (2a).

You skipped my point.

/

Morphology concerns form. And so also syntax. Especially in logic, syntax is a mater of form, hence 'well formed'.

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

In logic, terms are formed by rules. If symbols are not in correct order or incorrectly omitted, then they are not syntactical. In that way too, if a string of letters doesn't even form a word, then the expression in which the string occurs cannot be syntactical.

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

English has no morphological cases. — Lionino

I didn't say 'morphological cases'.

Your argument stooped to the tactic of citing ambiguity as if we would not be discussing modulo certain ambiguities.

I didn't say 'morphological cases'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

In linguistics, "case" and "declension" can only refer to morphology.

I am not reading them. — Lionino

But you are. Right now. Anyway, my posting is not based on whether you read or don't read.

I don't understand that.

But you are. Right now. Anyway, my posting is not based on whether you read or don't read. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That post is clearly not addressed at you. It says "tim wood" right on top.

I don't understand that. — Lionino

I explained it when I first flagged you on it.

You have to click on your own name on my posts to see what post I am referring to.

I don't understand "Your argument stooped to the tactic of citing ambiguity as if we would not be discussing modulo certain ambiguities.", not the post above that one.

every sentence is grammatical. Not every sentence is grammatically correct. — Lionino

Oh, please! Talk about inane nitpicking that isn't even correct! Obviously I'm using 'grammatical' in the sense of 'conforming to the rules of grammar'.

To clarify, my post

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

is addressed at tim wood, not anyone else.

Oh, please! Talk about inane nitpicking that isn't even correct! Obviously I'm using 'grammatical' in the sense of 'grammatically correct'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Case in point:

You insist on the most innane nitpicks on when it comes to mathematical and logical language. — Lionino

The pot calling the kettle black.

I responded exactly regarding the post of mine that you referred to.

I missed it.

You said that I nitpick. I don't. But then you turn around and incorrectly nitpick!

.

Is (a→b)→(a∨b) logical? Yes. Is it logically correct? No, not classically at least.

Yes, I should have verified who you were referring to. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Naturally, since I am evidently reading your posts.

So, unlikely as it seems, you apparently don't know what "rules" means, or "language" for that matter. — tim wood

What an actual platyhelminthic dolt, my lord. Learn your own language first so foreigners don't have to teach it to you.

I don't know your point. Anyway, people may use the word 'logical' differently: (1) pertaining to logic or (2) logically correct.

And so, your incorrect nitpick about my use of 'grammatical' when obviously I mean 'grammatically correct' or 'according to the rules of grammar'.

One instance that I can see might be regarded as nitpicking was when I said saying "B is true" was extraneous. But I mentioned it in a stylistic sense that it's better not to include extraneous items so that the arguments can be seen more clearly, without the distraction of those items.

So, unlikely as it seems, you apparently don't know what "rules" means, or "language" for that matter.
— tim wood

What an actual dolt, my lord. Learn your own language first so foreigners don't have to teach it to you. — Lionino

Are you saying the poster's sentence is not adequate English?

But your point reduces to the tautological: the mind can't operate rationally without operating rationally. No one disagrees with that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am aware of that. The tautology therefore is about law of thought, not about laws of logic, a different concept, thus it does not follow that laws of logic are unbreakable.

Moreover, even that point is not required, since we know that people do break laws of thought — TonesInDeepFreeze

Do I have to repeat my definition, which, if anything, is quite the appropriate definition?

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 — TonesInDeepFreeze

If the law of logic is understood as expressing a law of thought — which in modern days that is not how it is understood, hence my original comment to Leontiskos —, by definition it can't. If law of logic is understood as how we understand it today, laws of thought do not correspond to laws of logic because, as we have agreed, the latter may not be respected by some system, they may only allude to or be inspired by laws of thought.

I'm not talking about guessing what post was quoted. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am. You constantly mistake what post is being quoted. So click the arrow+name.

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

I have refuted that already. Talking of circles.

Then I overlooked that it did.

Are you saying the poster's sentence is not adequate English? — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, I am saying he is a dimwit, which he is. But since you asked, he should have written "as unlikely as it seems", instead of "unlikely as it seems". The "for that matter" phrase also doesn't make sense to be there, since the discussion/matter isn't around the word 'language'. Besides that, starting a conclusive paragraph with "So" is bad style, one ought to use these instead.

People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And all of those operations are operations of the mind, therefore bounded by the rules of the mind, which we may call laws of thought.

Right, I was just pointing out that this is almost certainly what the reference to "in modern theory," was referring to. This is how the French makes it into English sources.

Saussure is relevant to the conversation at hand in that his later post-structuralist disciples eventually worked themselves towards totally divorcing meaning from authorial intent and context. And this move was given an almost political connotation, a "freeing of the sign." Although one might question if some of the further evolutions of this way of thinking might not just succeed in freeing language from coherence and content.

I think there is actually a connection here to how formal grammar is conceptualized. In either case, the focus becomes signs' relations to other signs, pretty much to the exclusion of context or content.

This is how the French makes it into English sources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In that one case at least, yes.

totally divorcing meaning from authorial intent and context. And this move was given an almost political connotation, a "freeing of the sign." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see the connection between the two. In fact, divorcing meaning from authorial intent and context is quite nonsensical in most cases. The sign is freed as soon as the word (be the type or token) is not the concept it represents; which is indeed the signifiant and signifié, evidently so as soon as we know the former literally means image maker, the latter image made (made an image).

Meaning can indeed be divorced from authorial intent and context, but that only happens in dictionaries or when quoting one. That is indeed the signification/sens distinction:

D’après la distinction signification / sens classique, la signification concernerait le signe pris hors contexte et le sens ce même signe considéré en tant qu’élément d’un texte — https://www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/articles/cmlf/pdf/2008/01/cmlf08174.pdf

For disclosure, I didn't read that whole French article. I quoted it for the definition only.

But your point reduces to the tautological: the mind can't operate rationally without operating rationally. No one disagrees with that.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I am aware of that. The tautology therefore is about law of thought, not about laws of logic, a different concept, thus it does not follow that laws of logic are unbreakable. — Lionino

Yes, it doesn't follow. No one said otherwise. And yes, I was referring to your notion of the laws of thought. I'll say it again:

One can break the laws of thought on pain of being irrational. But you say that the laws of thought are unbreakable. But one can break the laws of thought. So you regroup by saying that one can't break them and be rational. But that is not at issue. My point is that one can break the laws of thought, contrary to your earlier claim.

Moreover, even that point is not required, since we know that people do break laws of thought
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Do I have to repeat my definition, which, if anything, is quite the appropriate definition? — Lionino

Definition of what? Of 'the laws of thought'? Repeat or not repeat whatever you like.

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
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If the law of logic is understood as expressing a law of thought — which in modern days that is not how it is understood — Lionino

Where is there a report that modern writers in general believe that laws of logic may not be understood as expressing laws of thought? And what period do you regard as modern?

hence my original comment to Leontiskos —, by definition it can't. If law of logic is understood as how we understand it today, laws of thought do not correspond to laws of logic because, as we have agreed, the latter may not be respected by some system, they may only allude to or be based on laws of thought. — Lionino

I'm uncertain whether I understand you. Certain systems don't respect certain laws of thought. That doesn't entail that laws of thought cannot be broken. Indeed, it evidences that they can.

Also, you say "the latter", which is 'laws of logic'. So 'they' also refers to 'laws of logic'. And you say 'they may only allude to or be based on laws of thought'. So that is saying that laws of logic may only allude to or be based on laws of thought. But that seems the opposite of anything we've agreed on. If the laws of thought require rejecting contradiction, then systems that allow contradiction do not adhere to that law of thought.

I'm not talking about guessing what post was quoted.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I am. You constantly [emphasis added] mistake what post is being quoted. — Lionino

(1) In one case, I was unclear as to whether you were quoting in agreement with the quoted poster. And I overlooked that your recent lashing out was not directed at me. That is not even remotely constant (2) In this instance, I've been in exactly the right place about what was posts was referenced.

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

I have refuted that already. Talking of circles. — Lionino

Your replies don't even come close to a refutation.

It's plain as day: One can easily see that "The cat is black" is grammatical, without having to know anything about the person who said it, or even if it was not said by a person but formed randomly by a machine. You've not refuted that. One of your replies is that we assume the speaker knows the meanings of the words. But that is not necessary to see that the sentence is grammatical. We could say, "I have no idea whether the person who wrote "The car engine is noisome" knows that 'noisome' means 'offensive' not 'noisy' but that doesn't matter if all you want to know is whether the sentence is grammatical. I'll happily and without any reservation tell you that is."

/

Oh, and about nitpicking: Your objection to "If ___, then ___" is a doozy!