What an amzing presentation to the so called Semantics. I always love the way you explain the lesson with such an easy way. I am from Algeria and we are in need to such Professors like you
At 21:00 the statement "No linguists are bald" should be represented "~(Ex)(Linguist(x) & Bald(x))" or alternatively "(Ax)~(Linguist(x) --> Bald(x))". The sentence "~x(Linguist(x) --> Bald(x))" appears to mean "Not every linguist is bald", which leaves open the possibility that there are bald linguists.
One other minor thing. At 20:10 the non-empty intersection of Bald and Linguist should be Ex(Bald(x) & Linguist(x)) (& rather than ->): meaning "there exists a bald linguist", or, more literally, "there exists (a person) who is both bald and a linguist". The proposition with the ->, Ex(Linguist(x) -> Bald(x)) would be true if there is a person who isn't a linguist, which will almost certainly be the case. Only a minor thing. This is great material. Keep it up.
...no, thank you :) This Lecture is not on the playlist of SEMantics by the way. The reference in SEM121 at the beginning made me aware of the existence of this vid.
All these lectures are wonderful. I wonder, though, how 'introductory' they are. For me with prior background in virtually all of the micro-topics, the lectures are a practical and grounded introduction to the linguistics approach itself: concepts such as economy of theory, sentence meaning as the possible primitive of meaning, etc. These lift up and organize the examples into a panoramic perspective -- that for me is the introduction. I do not think I would have been able to absorb such meta-linguistic statements 20 years ago. What could have allowed me to do so? Perhaps a constant reference to a full-bodied live examples of meaning in action.
Thanks for this lesson! You made it quite easy to understand it. Greetings from Bolivia
Fantastic you make students like pracmatics
What an amzing presentation to the so called Semantics. I always love the way you explain the lesson with such an easy way. I am from Algeria and we are in need to such Professors like you
Great lecture. Thank you very much from Indonesia. Always be healthy and educate people around the world. 🙏
At 21:00 the statement "No linguists are bald" should be represented "~(Ex)(Linguist(x) & Bald(x))" or alternatively "(Ax)~(Linguist(x) --> Bald(x))".
The sentence "~x(Linguist(x) --> Bald(x))" appears to mean "Not every linguist is bald", which leaves open the possibility that there are bald linguists.
One other minor thing. At 20:10 the non-empty intersection of Bald and Linguist should be Ex(Bald(x) & Linguist(x)) (& rather than ->): meaning "there exists a bald linguist", or, more literally, "there exists (a person) who is both bald and a linguist". The proposition with the ->, Ex(Linguist(x) -> Bald(x)) would be true if there is a person who isn't a linguist, which will almost certainly be the case.
Only a minor thing. This is great material. Keep it up.
I am amazed with this Professor!
Thanks a lot.
Is this a discrete maths lesson or English grammar lesson.
whatever this is, this is really good.
Danke schön!
...no, thank you :) This Lecture is not on the playlist of SEMantics by the way. The reference in SEM121 at the beginning made me aware of the existence of this vid.
Wonderful lecture sir, I want to learn more.
Join us on oer-vlc.de
This dude is the world's second coolest Jurgen, it is, however, a close-run thing.
Thanks a lot. But who is #1? 😎
@@oer-vlc He means Jurgen Klopp, Liverpool FC manager.
All these lectures are wonderful. I wonder, though, how 'introductory' they are. For me with prior background in virtually all of the micro-topics, the lectures are a practical and grounded introduction to the linguistics approach itself: concepts such as economy of theory, sentence meaning as the possible primitive of meaning, etc. These lift up and organize the examples into a panoramic perspective -- that for me is the introduction. I do not think I would have been able to absorb such meta-linguistic statements 20 years ago. What could have allowed me to do so? Perhaps a constant reference to a full-bodied live examples of meaning in action.
I am learning a mathematical English , this is cute and favourable as it seems to me
Its good idea..thanks
Can I get your email...I need some explenation concerning the subject??
@@lightlight9802 No , you can't
Really good job! Well explained and exposed. Thanks to the professor and collaborators.
Great illustration Thank you very much
woow, such a nice video, thanks
May I know, what is the definition of the utterance semantics? Thanks
easy to understand! Thank you Sir!
Thank you sooooo much, sir.
Thank you so much!
Thanks sir I loved a lot.
Are(You, Best) :D
Great.
humanidades me trajo acá.