[FOM] Simmons' denotation paradox and non-attributive reference

[Sandy Hodges]

Harvey Slater:
"the third phrase may have a reference - simply a non-attributive one. "

In the game of paradox theory, we must allow the characters in our
examples to use the same language that we ourselves use.   Since the
notion of attributive and non-attributive reference has now been
introduced, the example is modified accordingly.

On a certain day Abelard says "17" and says "The sum of the numbers
referred to attributively by Heloise today", and Heloise says says "62"
and says "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Master
Abelard today".   Neither says anything else that day.   Neither is
aware of what the other said, except that each knows that the set of
numbers referred to attributively by the other, is not empty.    If it
makes any difference, it is the intention of both to refer attributively
in each case.    Alberic says "The sum of the numbers referred to
attributively by Master Abelard today".  He also does not know what
Abelard said.

I await Harvey Slater's opinion on which of these five utterances refer
attributively.

Slater and I seem to be talking at cross-purposes to some extent.
Perhaps it would help if I say that showing the existence of paradoxes
is not what I am attempting to do.

------- -- ---- - --- -- --------- -----
Sandy Hodges / Alameda,  California,   USA
mail to SandyHodges at attbi.com will reach me.