more on this theme | more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
There is something puzzling about the notion that someone could understand the sentences "birds warble" and "tigers growl", yet have no idea what the sentence "tigers warble" meant.
Gist of Idea
To understand 'birds warble' and 'tigers growl', you must also understand 'tigers warble'
Source
John Heil (Philosophy of Mind [1998], Ch.5)
Book Ref
Heil,John: 'Philosophy of Mind' [Routledge 1998], p.136
A Reaction
True enough, but this need not imply the full thesis of linguistic holism. Words are assembled like bricks. I know tigers might warble, but stones don't. Might fish warble? Or volcanoes? I must know that 'birds warble' is not a tautology.