| Topic: | Re:Re:Re::Re:Re:First Access |
| Posted by: | nj |
| Date/Time: | 14/06/2003 01:30:47 |
|
Hello, Dr. Grinder. I'd like to correct some of the miswrites in the post that this post replies to. 1. I wrote, "If your answer is 'No', then can you think of any instances in which you might still use one of the above predicates without specifying the target of the relocation event it refers to?" and I meant to write, "If your answer is 'No', then can you think of any instances in which you might still use one of the above predicates without specifying the target of the relocation act it refers to?" 2. I wrote, "But couldn't you achieve the same results by supplying one or more new terms to describe a change in a state, stipulative terms, precising terms, or lexical terms that have neutral associations?" and I meant to write, "But couldn't you achieve the same results by supplying one or more new terms to describe a change in a state, either stipulative terms, precising terms, or lexical terms? The new terms could have neutral associations." 3. I wrote, "To end use of the atomic predicate 'disociated' ...". and "To use the multi-place predicate 'disociated' as an atomic predicate is not equivalent to using the ...". I meant "single-place" when I wrote "atomic", so I meant to refer to a predicate that takes one argument. -nj |