Re: Nunciation

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Arisbeans, RDF Lodgers, SemioComrades, Stand Up Ontologists,

I have a sense that the recent questions of Seth Russell and Robert Meersman
are pointing to a deeper lying qualm about the nature of our discussion here,
that -- behind, beneath, and beyond the points of a "comment on style" (COS)
that affect nothing more worthy of note than the character of one individual
author-ship's peculiar writing affectations -- putting that aside, they cast
to the fore a complex assortment of issues on which this group has long been
divided into a host of different camps, to wit, the polyphemic protean topic
that I will try, this time out, to express in terms of the following queries:

| Why is it necessary to reflect on signs?
| Why not just talk about the objects alone?
| Why not just use signs without mentioning them?

But I have deadline on another paper,
and so I leave it as an exercise for
the reader, and will return later on
to see what solution ye hath wrought.

Until Then,

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤