82,903
edits
Dilbert’s programme: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Thus, wherever Dilbert found undefined words, he defined them, where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | Thus, wherever Dilbert found undefined words, he defined them, where no better formulation presented itself, exactly as they were, to avoid all [[doubt]], of [[Type, kind or variety|any type, kind or variety]], even those small enough to cross the pedantry threshold into outright paranoia. | ||
Thus Dilbert is credited with inventing the “[[Dilbert definition]]” in which ''RE<sub>n</sub> == Referent<sub>n</sub>''<ref>RE = Referential Expression</ref>— one | |||
{{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”)}} | {{quote|An insured person (the “'''insured person'''”) may cancel (“'''cancel'''”) a policy (the “'''policy'''”) by providing us as insurer (“'''us'''” or the “'''insurer'''”) a written notice (the “'''written notice'''”) of the cancellation (the “'''cancellation'''”)}} | ||
Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a so-called “[[Dilbert definition]]” — one in which '' | Academic debate rages to this day as to whether a so-called “[[Dilbert definition]]” — one in which ''referring expression == referent'', qualifies as an unusually stable type of [[Biggs hoson]], or whether it simply has null semantic content. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Definitions]] | *[[Definitions]] | ||
*[[Biggs hoson]] | *[[Biggs hoson]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||