But Escher sentences eschew that, because they are gramatically fine but convey no real meaning. Which is why a paradox like “this sentence is a lie” counts as one. And I like them because escher sentences are a rebel jist like me frfr
Yes but my point is that if it conveys meaning to the intended target, it’s irrelevant.
Plenty of sentences, out of context, have no real meaning. The example in OP is one that could have meaning in the right context, which would be understood by its recipient
You’re both looking at it from completely different angles.
You’re seeing it at a way to criticise someone’s grammar; they’re looking at it as a puzzle to construct a grammatically correct sentence without imparting any meaning.
This is one of those points that, although correct, is so vague as to be largely pointless unless discussing miscommunication or something of the like. Or are you suggesting we are never allowed to talk about sentence structure or logic again?
But Escher sentences eschew that, because they are gramatically fine but convey no real meaning. Which is why a paradox like “this sentence is a lie” counts as one. And I like them because escher sentences are a rebel jist like me frfr
such a flex to put Escher and eschew so close together 🙌
Yes but my point is that if it conveys meaning to the intended target, it’s irrelevant.
Plenty of sentences, out of context, have no real meaning. The example in OP is one that could have meaning in the right context, which would be understood by its recipient
You’re both looking at it from completely different angles.
You’re seeing it at a way to criticise someone’s grammar; they’re looking at it as a puzzle to construct a grammatically correct sentence without imparting any meaning.
This is one of those points that, although correct, is so vague as to be largely pointless unless discussing miscommunication or something of the like. Or are you suggesting we are never allowed to talk about sentence structure or logic again?