(which, he didn't realize, just uses standard Romance grammar with very minor changes)? Or better, why don't we all talk predicate calculus? Frege, Tarski, and others also thought that human language wasn't worth studying. One can even construct paradoxes in it. Quite a departure from a rich tradition

(which, he didn't realize, just uses standard Romance grammar with very minor changes)? Or better, why don't we all talk predicate calculus? Frege, Tarski, and others also thought that human language wasn't worth studying. One can even construct paradoxes in it. Quite a departure from a rich tradition

h, he didn =80 t realize, just uses standard Romance grammar with very minor changes=? Or better, why don't we all talk predicate calculus? Frege, Tarski, and others also thought that human language wasn't w=rth studying. One can even construct paradoxes in it. Quite a depart=re from a rich tradition

tically, 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 account fo