From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Feb 9 10:47: 1 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7132F37B401 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 10:47:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7BC43F3F for ; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 10:46:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rsidd@papagena.rockefeller.edu) Received: from user-0cev12u.cable.mindspring.com ([24.239.132.94] helo=bluerondo.a.la.turk) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18hwTj-0004Wo-01 for chat@freebsd.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2003 10:46:59 -0800 Received: (qmail 19939 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Feb 2003 18:46:58 -0000 Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:46:58 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Mark Murray Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: languages Message-ID: <20030209184658.GA19887@papagena.rockefeller.edu> References: <20030209181722.GA19704@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <200302091826.h19IQBaX035066@grimreaper.grondar.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200302091820.h19IKpaX034953@grimreaper.grondar.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Mark Murray wrote: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: > > All right, show me where in the XML 1.0 specification the > > interpretation of the following snippet of XML described: Presumably in some DTD somewhere? That's possible with XML (hence "extensible") > Where in a dictionary is the meaning of Jabberwocky explained? > > 'Twas brillig. and the slithy toves did gimble on the gyre.... > > Language is a structure, not necessarily a meaning. Well, it's explained later in "Through the looking glass", and some of it even got into the dictionary later ("chortle", "galumph"). The newspeak words in Burgess's "A clockwork orange" aren't in fact explained anywhere -- the reader understands them by context. But they still have a meaning. Ditto with some of Edward Lear's nonsense. I think language is a structure *and* a meaning, but the meaning doesn't necessarily come from an authoritative dictionary (though the Academie Française may disagree) R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message