What is a syntactic description?
Okay, about an hour after I had posted this forum, or I’m not quite sure if I’m allowed to post this here. Do questions in linguistics SE, or linguistics SE not writing in the SE, have to be research oriented? My questions necessitate reading this passage:…
(11) A
or B Not
A Thus
B These
schematic representations of arguments are called argument schemata (The representations of arguments are called argument schemata (Abortion Diagrams)). The letters A & B are for arbitrary sentences. Filling in actual sentences for them we obtain an actual argument. Any such substitution into schema is a valid argument, which is what (11) is said to be that it is a valid argument schema.
The form we said that could be represented by (11) is more than just a syntactic construction. The first premise is not just two sentence linked by a conjunction, for it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. Why is the conjunction ‘or’ in (11) removed with another conjunction say, ‘if’?
What is syntactic
- construction?
- Why is the argument schemata represented by (11) “more than just a syntactic construction”?
I believe syntactic construction is simply a schematic representation of structure of a sentence as in (11). I feel in confused at this sentence and understand when the author says the form we said is more than a syntactic construction. What makes it more than a syntactic construction? What is more important than the matter of the conjunction that it is pointing to?
Could someone help me explain this please. Thanks.
But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.
If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.
Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?
Is there any place in India to live in future?
(11) is an argument schemata because it uses what are called metalanguage variables ‘A’ and ‘B’. These are variables for which you can substitute sentences of your object language (in your case, English). Let A = ‘dogs are black’ and B = ‘cats are happy’ and you get:
Dogs are black or cats are happy.
Dogs are not black.
Why are cats happy?
What are the differences between syntactic construction and syntactico-manufacturing?
A syntactic construction specifies just types of syntactic categories. Why? Unlike “Movement Language”, it don’t use any particular words of the language. If someone writes your text then it is applying the same principle to logic (although not many logicians do). In (elementary) logic, the syntactic categories are sentence, conjunction (also called a two-place connective) and one-place connectives (for example, negation).
What is each of these categories and why all of them have such strings of words? For example:
-
sentences : dogs are black, cats are happy,.. conjunctions
-
: , or, if…then one-place connectives :
-
not A syntactic construction would
only use the category names and not the specific words that belong to those categories. For example:
sentence conjunction sentence
negation sentence
Notice
that I have not used any particular sentences or conjunctions. But (11) does use a particular word belonging to the category conjunction, namely ‘or. In that sense, it is more than a syntactic construction.
(11) is an argument schemata because it uses what are called metalanguage variables ‘A’ and ‘B’. These are variables for which you can substitute sentences of your object language (in your case, English). Let A = ‘dogs are black’ and B = ‘cats are happy’ and you get:
Dogs are black or cats are happy.
Dogs are not black.
Why are cats happy?
What are the differences between syntactic construction and syntactico-manufacturing?
A syntactic construction specifies just types of syntactic categories. Why? Unlike “Movement Language”, it don’t use any particular words of the language. If someone writes your text then it is applying the same principle to logic (although not many logicians do). In (elementary) logic, the syntactic categories are sentence, conjunction (also called a two-place connective) and one-place connectives (for example, negation).
What is each of these categories and why all of them have such strings of words? For example:
-
sentences : dogs are black, cats are happy,.. conjunctions
-
: , or, if…then one-place connectives :
-
not A syntactic construction would
only use the category names and not the specific words that belong to those categories. For example:
sentence conjunction sentence
negation sentence
Notice
that I have not used any particular sentences or conjunctions. But (11) does use a particular word belonging to the category conjunction, namely ‘or. In that sense, it is more than a syntactic construction.
But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.
If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.
Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?
Is there any place in India to live in future?
Syntax is the structure of a sentence. Since sittactic construction is how you construct sentences. Rather a language. Is there a way a language can make a sentence in a sentence? In writing, it is helpful to vary your syntax.
Different languages have different syntactical demands. In German: the verb always goes second. In a sentence it always goes second. In English, the normal syntax would be to have a subject/verb/direction/direct object.
I don’t understand use a verbose phrase like “syntactical construction”, when “syntax” would work just as well.
Source: Yahoo! Why
would someone ask me a simple question: “What is answer?”
(11) is an argument schemata because it uses what are called metalanguage variables ‘A’ and ‘B’. These are variables for which you can substitute sentences of your object language (in your case, English). Let A = ‘dogs are black’ and B = ‘cats are happy’ and you get:
Dogs are black or cats are happy.
Dogs are not black.
Why are cats happy?
What are the differences between syntactic construction and syntactico-manufacturing?
A syntactic construction specifies just types of syntactic categories. Why? Unlike “Movement Language”, it don’t use any particular words of the language. If someone writes your text then it is applying the same principle to logic (although not many logicians do). In (elementary) logic, the syntactic categories are sentence, conjunction (also called a two-place connective) and one-place connectives (for example, negation).
What is each of these categories and why all of them have such strings of words? For example:
-
sentences : dogs are black, cats are happy,.. conjunctions
-
: , or, if…then one-place connectives :
-
not A syntactic construction would
only use the category names and not the specific words that belong to those categories. For example:
sentence conjunction sentence
negation sentence
Notice
that I have not used any particular sentences or conjunctions. But (11) does use a particular word belonging to the category conjunction, namely ‘or. In that sense, it is more than a syntactic construction.
But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.
If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.
Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?
Is there any place in India to live in future?
But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.
If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.
Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?
Is there any place in India to live in future?
Syntax is the structure of a sentence. Since sittactic construction is how you construct sentences. Rather a language. Is there a way a language can make a sentence in a sentence? In writing, it is helpful to vary your syntax.
Different languages have different syntactical demands. In German: the verb always goes second. In a sentence it always goes second. In English, the normal syntax would be to have a subject/verb/direction/direct object.
I don’t understand use a verbose phrase like “syntactical construction”, when “syntax” would work just as well.
Source: Yahoo! Why
would someone ask me a simple question: “What is answer?”
(11) is an argument schemata because it uses what are called metalanguage variables ‘A’ and ‘B’. These are variables for which you can substitute sentences of your object language (in your case, English). Let A = ‘dogs are black’ and B = ‘cats are happy’ and you get:
Dogs are black or cats are happy.
Dogs are not black.
Why are cats happy?
What are the differences between syntactic construction and syntactico-manufacturing?
A syntactic construction specifies just types of syntactic categories. Why? Unlike “Movement Language”, it don’t use any particular words of the language. If someone writes your text then it is applying the same principle to logic (although not many logicians do). In (elementary) logic, the syntactic categories are sentence, conjunction (also called a two-place connective) and one-place connectives (for example, negation).
What is each of these categories and why all of them have such strings of words? For example:
-
sentences : dogs are black, cats are happy,.. conjunctions
-
: , or, if…then one-place connectives :
-
not A syntactic construction would
only use the category names and not the specific words that belong to those categories. For example:
sentence conjunction sentence
negation sentence
Notice
that I have not used any particular sentences or conjunctions. But (11) does use a particular word belonging to the category conjunction, namely ‘or. In that sense, it is more than a syntactic construction.
