So when is a SUT really needed?

Dear Lew,

After how many years (+65?) you don't understand the difference between

logic and grammar . Logic is science grammar is not. There are more than

5000 languages in the ''known universe'' but only one logic .

Grammar is for spoken languages. For our ears. But how does one reed and

write with his ears.? Your interest in ''definition of words '' is wrong assumption

while the logic state that from wrong assunptions (=premise) can't follow

true deductions. As Frege put it : ''the mening of words is their contriburion 

to the memsing of statments in which they are used''. 

Where does grammar explain that ''subject''  in a sentence is just ONE

VARIABLE ? Where the connective ''IS'' between Subject end Predicat?

Logic explains 4 different ''meaning'' of connctive ''is''. I use 4 different

langages , so to speak, daily: Serbo-Kroatian, German, Dutch and English

all with different grammars...those are prescriptions which are not 

true or false but can  be understod if one is fsmiliar with the ''culture''

in which they  are used. Otherwise ''cultural shocks'' can't be understoood.

@nandric 

After your last post, my apologies for any misunderstanding we may have had.

Please try any SUT with your system. And your ears will answer your question.

The llnis of generalisation : ''wich or what is the best''?

The paradox of ''set theory'' ; ''the set of all sets''.

One put the quantifier ''all'' in de place of ''subject '' of the sentence without

knowing what this means.

The ''formula'' is:

1, all x satisfy condition Fx and Gx . if one x does not satisfy conditon F and G

    then the whole generalisation is not true

2. some x are Fx and Gx (=existential quantifier) . To be true at list one x

    sould satisfi both condions

F and G are only examles of varibles ; one can write them also as

a,,b,c, ....n

Meaning and reference. All physicist  knew what ''Higs particle means'' in the

sence of contribution to the theory but nobody knew if it exist. Only after

prove in colider in Switserland the existance is proven . Not only assumed.

For example:; who knows how many AT cartidges are made.? How than

should one know ''which is the best''? One own, say, 5 and about them 

one can quantify. Say AT 180 is the best from those which I own.

'Grammar'' versus  ''logic''.

Is the expresion ''calling names'' legitimate according to Lew in'' American-

English'' grammar?

I don't belive tha logic is interested in ''insulting expressions''. What is even

more important according to  logic and science NAMES don't

have PREDICATIVE  FUNCTION. In SHORT ''they say nothing about

their beares''.. That  is WHY pridicates are needed which say something about

the posible BEARER O NAMES. While existential qvantifier ''some '' assume 

existence but the proven one. Pegasus , for example, flying  horse, does not

existe. What about GOD?