User talk:Azamat Abdoullaev

Meaning

This article is now a disambiguation article. If you wish to post, please put it at Meaning (linguistic). Also, please do not engage in wholesale deletion of content. Lucidish 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't remove this edition, since the disambiguation page should cover the most number of related articles. Your version is rather a skew vision of 'meaning', for it misses all the references on the 'meaning (general)' and many other significant articles, which are not mine. Azamat Abdoullaev 10:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You created the "meaning (general)" article. And your proposed text doesn't deal in clearing up any ambiguity, it provides related links, which is not the purpose of a disambiguation page. Also, it is just a repetition of text which can be found at Meaning (linguistic), which you can find in the "nature of meaning" section.

I'm sure we can clear this up by talking about it. Please reply by posting on my talk page, which will inform me more quickly of your replies. Lucidish 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is in giving a definition of both linguistic and non-linguistic meaning at the same time. If you can provide a short definition on the Meaning disambiguation page which encompasses both linguistic and non-linguistic senses of the term, then that would be great (perhaps along the lines of the AAA paradigm). You're right that would make the topic more clear. However, I'd place the emphasis on "short". Lucidish 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity

Azamat, you said: Dear Holon, both intro to Quantity page must be somehow merged; for as now its not good: the definition is not strong, quantity is not a relation, etc. I wait your combined version today. Thanks

Can we discuss at talk:quantity? Could you please respond to my points before going forward. I am happy to look at merging, but the definition you provided was not clear. Cheers. Holon 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign

Edited now, to engage with your concerns. I should note, though, that the phrasing of "entity" was intentional, not "confusion". A concept may be an abstract entity, but it is only by the most unfathomable stretch of the imagination that, say, a proposition or a belief is treated as if it were an "entity". There are fairly serious reasons why such Platonic proposals, such as that of Katz (summarized in Keith Allan's "Linguistic Meaning"), are not well-received. This is why we need more than just talk of "entities". { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 19:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]