0
Rvw Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies

Montague Grammar

0 Roro, et al: 02br
02br
00I am reading a short paper on his theories. It seems quite complicated. Can you tell me if it's worth the effort? 02br
02br
00Montague said: "There is in my opinion no important theoretical difference between natural languages and the artificial languages of logicians; indeed, I consider it possible to comprehend the syntax and semantics of both kinds of languages within a single natural and mathematically precise theory." 02br
02br
00I wonder if he is just 01i00wishing02i00 that natural language were as analyzable as logic. 0-
  

Top answer

0 Hello, rvw. Yes, indeed, it's quite complicated. It's a whole system of logical language.

— Roro

  • 0 Hello, rvw.
  • Yes, indeed, it's quite complicated.
  • It's a whole system of logical language.
  • I learned it stepwise, from traditional propositional logic, predicate logic, two-sorted logic, modal logic, tense logic, type theory, categorial grammar, intensional logic (they all are simple systems of formal language, so it's not difficult at all to acquire them).
  • Montague grammar is a combination of these.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

42 Answers
0
0 Hello, rvw. Yes, indeed, it's quite complicated. It's a whole system of logical language. I learned it stepwise, from traditional propositional logic, predicate logic, two-sorted logic, modal logic, tense logic, type theory, categorial grammar, intensional logic (they all are simple systems of formal language, so it's not difficult at all to acquire them). Montague grammar is a combination of
0
0
0 Roro, 02br
02br
00Perhaps each of our 'languages' is best suited for its use. Roughly in increasing order of unambiguity and systematization: 02br
02br
00poetry 02br
00prose 02br
00legal prose 02br
00philosophical prose 02br
00scientific prose 02br
00computer languages 02br
00mathe
0
0
0 Dear rvw, your point of view toward languages is beautiful. I need some time to answer to your question. 02br
00So for the meantime I'd like to give you a translation of my favorite 01i00tanka02i00: 02br
02br
00Today, too, I can sleep 02br
00after my efforts to stay 02br
00on my best behaviour, 02br
00n
0
0
0 Hello, rvw, sorry for my slow reply ... I got frightened to answer to your huge question ... I'm not qualified yet! ... so please bear in mind this is only some of my personal, shortsighted ideas. 02br
02br
00Can I rephrase your question as: why do we need this formal language? We can pose arguments, communicate, express, discuss without it. (This way of presenting the que
0
0
0 Hello, rvw. I'd like to add just a few words. 02br
00I remember reading in Gamut1991 roughly such an exciting passage: 02br
02br
00G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716) had proposed a program for logic and developed ideas of a universal language, in which thought could be represented directly, without any of the ambiguities. Frege's predicate logic is a more powerful langua
0
0
0 Dear Roro, 02br
02br
00As you said in a previous post, this is a "huge question." I think the answer will come from many fields: linguistics, philosophy, psychology, physiology, neuro-science.... 02br
02br
00Our language and our thinking are inherently and necessarily vague. If I ask for a hammer, I will be happy to get just about any hammer, not ju
0
0
0 ... thank you ... ! 02br
00If you are interested in this matter, I will be very glad to help you. 02br
00Above all, it's useful for me, before everything. ... thank you again ... 0-
0
0
0 01blockquote
00 (Hard to express in a predicate calculus!) 12blockquote
12br
00How true it is. I wanted to say the same thing, but I couldn't find an appropriate word. Your favorite quotations are fabulous ...! J.Brodsky once wrote ... : 02br
02br
01blockquote
00 That's what's interesting about poets: after the
0
0
0 Hello, rvw, I was delighted at reading your comment, 00. You see the problem properly, maybe clearer than I. You must be a very intellectual person. It makes matters easier for me, because you've understood my standpoint is restricted considerably. 02br
02br
00And thank you for your information, I've never imagined that 00 unto itself could be a philosophical term.
0
0
0 Hello, rvw, I don't know where that Wittgenstein's quote is taken from, but I think it belongs to 00 Wittgenstein. Then we cannot take his word simply as it stands ... ! We should take it only in contrast with 00 Wittgenstein. Otherwise we misunderstand his intention. 0-
0

Related Questions