The formula: 4 footers + 2 towers = 1 plinth.
Regards, |
A 'plinth' is actualy not a name with refering function
but rather a 'concept' with as many senses as the users
of the term think of. But we can determine an more precise
meaning by our discussion. I myself however
will never acknowledge whatever number of footers as a plinth.
Regards, |
The 'nacked truth' seems to be that there is no such a thing as a 'nacked TT'. The most of those we are talking about are made in Japan, while J.Carr explained that there
is no equivalent in Japanese for 'our' expression 'plinth'.
They use the expression 'base' instead so whatever one put
under his 'nacked TT' is obviously a 'base'. Raul's claim
to be the first who discovered the 'nacked truth' mentioned even 3 of those 'pneumatic' AT footers with obvious convinction that the expression 'plinth' has a
very clear denotation while those huge pneumatic footers
on which both his Denon's were 'footed' should be seen as a
totally different animal. I am known as very fond of semantics but this 'subject' is actually about the relation between the language and the so called 'reality'.
Besides without the notion of an 'base' one get confused
regarding what is 'above' and what 'below' so some of us
even used the copper mat to put not 'obove' the platter but
under the 'nacked TT' with some strange results.
Regards, |
Dear Lew, First of all glad to see that you are well and
even more so to see your contributions again. There are
two competing theories of truth. One is the 'referential'
the other based on 'meaning'. Say 'bachelor' means the same
as 'unmarried man' or 'plinth' means the same as 'base'. This one is also called 'analityc'. The problem however is that we need the reference to the reality: there is no truth inside the language. Both are combined in Tarski's theory of truth which is based on quantification and conditions. Say: 'some man are young and bold'. 'Some' is an quantifier while 'young' and 'bold' are conditions which some persons need to satisfy in order to make such statements true. Even persons who have never heard about whatever theory of truth are obviously able to say: 'I know 3 of such persons'. This means that they understand what 'young' and 'bold' means but also that there are such persons in reality which they are able to recognise. In your 'meanings theory' no Japanese will be able to recognise any 'plinth' while we in the West would have no idea what 'base' is refering to. As a scientist you are supposed to believe in the 'universal truth'. The 'synonym'
approach will not do as you can check by Quine or may conclude from my explanation.
Regards,
|
Dear Lew, I am sorry for you but I already mentioned Quine for 'çheckup':'The problem of meaning in linguistics' ( From a logical point of view). The identity relation between meanings make no sense as in your 'plinth=base'. Semantics
and dictionary are different animals. Besides I also mentioned J.Carr who is, as far as I know, American and supposed to 'know' his English. He writes 'plinth' with
quotation marks because the meaning of this word is not as 'clear' as one assume. If he thought that 'base=plinth' he would not state that in Japanese there is no word for
'plinth'. Dover's 'Emperors clothes' are more to my liking in the 'nacked' context than your 'theories' about the ' nude project'.
Regards, |
Addendum, Remarks about someone's theory without any specification is of course weak. Well, dear Lew ,in your previous post you stated: 'there is qualitative difference
between a real plinth (sic!) and ...just footers'. Considering that 'plinth=base' those 'footers' are neither of both and must be some objects of the 'third kind'. If
there is difference than logicaly they can't be 'the same'.
Not even qua 'meaning' (alias 'synonym') So to make your point you are forced to make distinction between 'plinth' (the 'real one')and other possible 'things' on which a TT can be put as base. But because my English is not adequate you must be right qua English .
Regards, |
Dear Chris, I learned from Frege not to ask for the meaning of words but to think about the contribution a word makes to the meaning of the sentence in which it is used. The 'context' is one way to think about this question the other is the thought expressed. The meaning of a sentence is the thought expressed. Well the same thought can be expressed in different ways and this imply that we can express the same thought with different words. The fact that the science is universal pressupose recognition of the same thoughts in different languages. To be able to judge if some thought is true one of course
need to understand the thought first. Considering the universal succes of science this probable means that there are no problems with understanding. So no wonder that 'new
thoughts' in science are welcome no matter from which country or languge they come.
Regards, |
Dear Lew, I assume that my legs or footers are 'legitimate'
base to carry my nacked or clothed body. I can imagine that
in some future time I may need an 'plinth' in the form of
a wheelchair. This will , I also assume, make some
'qualitative difference', to use your own argument. BTW
I thought that nobody care anymore about Freud. Anyway
his dreams were probable in (Austrian) German. |
Addendum, the reason I think that Freud probale dreamed in
Austrian German is that I was not able to understand the
Austrians for the first 3 months . However I am sure that
he wrote his teaching about the 'dream interpetation' (Traum deutung) in ordinary German because I was able to read his book. I had an fantastic relation with my parents with no problem of any kind till I learned abou Freud . I was stuned that this guy from Austria knew better than I myself what I thought about my dad and mom. Such is the force of the marker 'Dr' for someone's name not to mention the title Professor. Since Freud I never felt easy at home because of my feeling of quilt. I had no idea of what I was quilty but , you know, an Professor knows everything better. |
Well one can dispute the difference between 'nacked' and 'nude' as any (?) semantic question..endless. To my mind however it is a cultural question. In some Arabic countries even a 'bare foot' is considerd as 'nudity' and if the owner of the foot is a women she will be called a hooker. Some other countries have something against the 'bare knees', etc. I am surprised to see that Assies have such a limited opinion of what an plinth in general should be and which TT's should be considered as 'nacked' and which as 'nude'. Regarding our own Aussie Lew already stated that the pretended 'nudity' should be dismised because there is a plinth according to him. I even see two of those steel rings (aka plinths)connected to each other with the biggest spiks I have ever seen in my life. But, as already mentioned, the question is a cultural one while nobody knows, nor can know, where all those Assies come from and with which culture behind them.
|
My post is declined as 'inappriate or inflamatory' probaly because I used the expressions 'hooker','prostitute' and 'whore' in the context of the logic of substitution. Substitution and quantification are interdependant so by way of introduction I mentioned 'Vienna', 'Wenen' (Dutch), Bec (Serbo Kroatian) and 'Wien' (German). The logical rule
is this: whatever is true about the object refered to will stay true under substitution of names with the same reference. I called those co-refering names. Now my point was that Lew is wrong with his assumption regarding the expression 'hooker'. One may dispute the 'meaning' of those expressions but they all refer to the same, uh, profession. It is obvious that different languges have different expression for the same profession but it is also obvious that they can be substituted for each other such that the sentence in which they occur has the same sense and/or reference. The reference of an statement being arguable the truth value of the sentence. The other theory imply reference (of a statement) to something called 'fact'. Now one can feel insulted if called 'prostitute' but what can be
the 'sin'of an word or an expression? The moderators obviously discrimante between 'neat words' and, say,'filthy kinds' but which linguist would make such an division? The other members also used the word 'hooker' so I assume that either 'prostitute' or 'whore' are the quilty one according to our moderators.
BTW the same argument apply for 'nude' versus 'naked'; both refer to ,uh, the same thing.
|
Dear Lew, I forget alas your quote of the comment by Twain about Wagner but I have similar comment about our moderators. They are not as bad as they look. Propably little bit 'prudish' but well sportsmanlike because they allowed my post from 08-23-13 which was not very nice for them. However I fear that my panishment with moderator
approval is meant for life. They obviously have no idea how old I am. |
I am very reluctant to say this or whatever in the presence of Lew and Dover who are known as critical minds. In particular regarding the opinions of others. But if I remember well (not easy at my age) by the first DD TT's this, uh, 'magnetic matter' was immediately mentioned with warning for the use of the MC carts in conjunction with them. One of the reasons for me , except being the best TT ever, to buy the LP-12 then. Strange that after so many years this 'magnetic matter' is again reinvented or rather re-introduced.
Regards, |
