26, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Noam Chomsky • wrote: For word meanings, the closest I can think of to something like this is an array of meaning postulates, in Carnap's sense, something that Jerry Fodor for one has toyed with. Multidimensional, but not a field. I don't see how to work it out, or to extend it to the

talks. Best time for us would be the 16th. Have a talk at Harvard at noon, but free after that. Your computer guy reminds me of the first time I met Carnap. He couldn't understand why people talked languages, with all their irregularities and complexity. Why doesn't everyone just talk Esperanto (which,

talks. Best time for us would be the 16th. Have a talk at Harvard at noon, but free after that. Your computer guy reminds me of the first time I met Carnap. He couldn't understand why people talked languages, with all their irregularities and complexity. Why doesn't everyone just talk Esperanto (which,

talks. Best =ime for us would be the 16th. Have a talk at Harvard at n=on, but free after that. Your computer guy reminds me of the f=rst time I met Carnap. He couldn't understand why people tal=ed languages, with all their irregularities and complexity. Why doesn't everyone just talk Esperanto (which,

e. Mathematically, we can probably treat them as =irected hypergraphs with typed links, but we rarely go to that level of =escription. I guess that Carnap and Tarski delivered the first =ncarnations of the modern theories on them, and every comprehensive =heory of thinking, planning and language has to

:59 AM, Noam Chomsky mailto wrote: > > For word meani=gs, the closest I can think of to something like this is an array of meani=g postulates, in Carnap's sense, something that Jerry Fodor for one ha= toyed with. Multidimensional, but not a field. I don't se= how to work it out, or to extend it to t