SEM120 - Sentence Semantics

This introductory E-Lecture about sentence semantics introduces the main principles and the central mechanisms involved in propositional and predicate logic. Additionally, it shows how entailment relations can be defined and applied and how the principles of quantification can be combined with predicates.

[@charlinrojasconde9271]

Thanks for this lesson! You made it quite easy to understand it. Greetings from Bolivia

[@changeyourmood5512]

What an amzing presentation to the so called Semantics. I always love the way you explain the lesson with such an easy way. I am from Algeria and we are in need to such Professors like you

[@valentinussofa4135]

Great lecture. Thank you very much from Indonesia. Always be healthy and educate people around the world. 🙏

[@fouzmim3325]

Fantastic you make students like pracmatics

[@kaafa3337]

Is this a discrete maths lesson or English grammar lesson.
whatever this is, this is really good.

[@nickraphael5382]

All these lectures are wonderful. I wonder, though, how 'introductory' they are. For me with prior background in virtually all of the micro-topics, the lectures are a practical and grounded introduction to the linguistics approach itself: concepts such as economy of theory, sentence meaning as the possible primitive of meaning, etc. These lift up and organize the examples into a panoramic perspective -- that for me is the introduction. I do not think I would have been able to absorb such meta-linguistic statements 20 years ago. What could have allowed me to do so? Perhaps a constant reference to a full-bodied live examples of meaning in action.

[@bibliaelinguas]

I am amazed with this Professor!

[@oer-vlc]

Thanks a lot.

[@fatimahal-shammiri5244]

Great illustration Thank you very much

[@soheilrk1351]

woow, such a nice video, thanks

[@sonali10380]

easy to understand! Thank you Sir!

[@sammark5658]

Danke schön!

[@inandaroundthelake]

At 21:00 the statement "No linguists are bald" should be represented "~(Ex)(Linguist(x) & Bald(x))" or alternatively "(Ax)~(Linguist(x) --> Bald(x))".
The sentence "~x(Linguist(x) --> Bald(x))" appears to mean "Not every linguist is bald", which leaves open the possibility that there are bald linguists.

[@victorjauregui6721]

One other minor thing. At 20:10 the non-empty intersection of Bald and Linguist should be Ex(Bald(x) & Linguist(x)) (& rather than ->): meaning "there exists a bald linguist", or, more literally, "there exists (a person) who is both bald and a linguist". The proposition with the ->, Ex(Linguist(x) -> Bald(x)) would be true if there is a person who isn't a linguist, which will almost certainly be the case.
Only a minor thing. This is great material. Keep it up.

[@MariaMartinez-vy1gr]

Thank you sooooo much, sir.

[@simonepielok2115]

Thank you so much!

[@bergg2009]

...no, thank you :) This Lecture is not on the playlist of SEMantics by the way. The reference in SEM121 at the beginning made me aware of the existence of this vid.

[@hirowoliveira1432]

Really good job! Well explained and exposed. Thanks to the professor and collaborators.

[@getuliopimentel2964]

Thanks sir I loved a lot.

[@tell-usjournal6949]

May I know, what is the definition of the utterance semantics? Thanks

[@sl11tenderhand]

This dude is the world's second coolest Jurgen, it is, however, a close-run thing.

[@oer-vlc]

Thanks a lot. But who is #1? 😎

[@SadMonkeyz935]

@@oer-vlc He means Jurgen Klopp, Liverpool FC manager.

[@user-pr9kc7xj6l]

Wonderful lecture sir, I want to learn more.

[@oer-vlc]

Join us on oer-vlc.de

[@ghofranechetouanetara1548]

I am learning a mathematical English , this is cute and favourable as it seems to me

[@lightlight9802]

Its good idea..thanks

[@lightlight9802]

Can I get your email...I need some explenation concerning the subject??

[@ghofranechetouanetara1548]

@@lightlight9802 No , you can't

[@alirende9908]

Are(You, Best) :D

[@oer-vlc]

Great.

[@venus4763]

humanidades me trajo acá.