tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6576429639367778202..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Communication boards and indexicals (Language, Part I)Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-1291892683602448382007-10-22T21:41:00.000-05:002007-10-22T21:41:00.000-05:00Yes, that's a nice point, there is no need for the...Yes, that's a nice point, there is no need for the board to work the standard way, and the added complication you give is helpful here (and I think may be helpful to the full view that I'm working on). So thanks!<BR/><BR/>But for my analogy with indexicals, I need the case where it works the standard way. :-)Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-20717755931831242982007-10-22T21:26:00.000-05:002007-10-22T21:26:00.000-05:00What about codes? Consider the board as being, rat...What about codes? Consider the board as being, rather than an integral object, a series of image-counters on the cells of a gridded table. The speaker is expecting two visitors, A and B. A has seen the board in its original state; B has not. The speaker wants to convey something secretly to A, so in advance of B's arrival he moves all the counters on the grid one cell over to the right. When he points, it seems like gibberish to B, and B judges it syntactically incorrect. But A recognizes it as a code, and judges it correct. The same could hold if another picture were added, and each image-counter shifted one position within certain margins. It seems to me that you overstate by implying that if the speaker points to a certain image, that he necessarily means to express that image. The syntactical correctness of what he indicates must be judged by what some particular hearer understands by it.Paul M. Rodriguezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925737399903171837noreply@blogger.com