Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Characterization
Message-ID: <13207@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 7-Oct-86 21:21:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.13207
Posted: Tue Oct  7 21:21:01 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 11:10:23 EDT
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <337@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 14

In article <337@husc6.HARVARD.EDU>, hadeishi@husc4.harvard.edu (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
> [..]	Language in itself contains no meaning; it requires
> at least two people with common experiences before the symbols
> can be said to have meaning. [...]

Although this statement is not central to your point as I read it,
I should point out that it is highly contentious.

Since you mention the private language argument (if there is just one),
I assume you take it to be valid. Could you show us your version of
the argument in more detail, please?

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa