An Introduction to Cow Semantics
The Lingual Cow in his Natural Bovinian State.
It has come to my attention that some of the less studious amongst my followers are not familiar with the finer aspects of Cow semantics. This is a serious problem, mostly because the finer points of Cow semantics are a necessary aspect of the modern fair-thee-well syndrome that has so affected the younger generations amongst us. Or not amongst us, as the case may or may not be. Simply put, the problem is that cows have semantics, and we must discuss them. In finer points. Preferably with graphs and charts, and at LEAST one Greek letter standing for something.
So here is a simple introduction to Cow semantics. It’s nothing you should be too worried about, seeing as how you’re more likely to understand cows than you are not to.. understand cows. It’s not all that complicated. Well, it will be when I’m done with it, but that’s just a sign of my genius and your puny intellectual phlegm-for-brains self had better get used to it. Otherwise I’ll add more symbols – big ones this time.
Okay. So first, we need to consider what it is that cows utter. Mostly, this is “moo”. As far as the fieldworkers report (which is not very far), cows pretty much have a restricted lexicon of “moo”. We will therefore stipulate this narrow lexicon under the OOWFCH, or Only One Word for Cows Hypothesis. It’s easier if you just remember the acronym, though, trust me.
So, given the OOWFCH, we need to come up with how it is that cows structure their discourse. A sample of in-context discourse will help in this respect.
Bloomfield points to grass.
Bloomfield: Want some grass, Bluebell?
Cow: Moo.
So, from this utterance, we see that Moo can be an affirmative answer to a yes/no question regarding means of sustenance. This, we shall call the MIYH, or Moo is Yes Hypothesis (see McMuffins 1987 for further discussion on this important hypothesis).
Unfortunately, Fishbein (1998) disproved this hypothesis, based on Bloomfield’s later return fieldwork (1939).
Bloomfield points to the sky.
Bloomfield: Did you fly here from Mars, Bluebell?
Cow: Moo.
Modern day cow fieldworkers carrying on the Bloomfieldian tradition.
Thus we can deduce that, unless cows are in fact martians (See Marschwitz 1984), the cow here means “no”, thus disproving the MIYH hypothesis.
In the end, we are left to determine that, under the OOWFCH, cow semantics can be best represented with the following Fregean-type predicate structure:
[[Moo]] = [λx E De . x = moo]
But what does this predicate structure bind with? The variable surely must be bound by something – but what? This puzzled bovine philosophers for nearly 20 minutes (Bunff 1904a), until it was pointed out that the variable could be discourse sensitive (Bunff 1904b).
Thus a sample derivation takes the incoming sentence uttered by the fieldworker and turns it into cow semantics, as follows (Adapted from Pudgkins 2002).
[[Moo]] = [λx E De . x = moo]
[[Moo]]([[I saw a badger in my pants]])
[λx E De . x = moo]([[I saw a badger in my pants]])
[I saw a badger in my pants = moo]
= 1 iff moo.
Thus the cow can provably be said to utter a true sentence when responding to any statement from an outsider with “moo”. The main problem with this analysis is that, because of the bound variable, cows can never utter a sentence alone. This leads us to our final point for the paper:
(1) Cows are not terribly smart.
Bibliography
Bloomfield, Saint Leonard. 1939. The Bovine Texts. American Philosophical Society, Pennsylvania:PA.
Bunff, Edgar. 1904. I was puzzled for 20 minutes. Bovinia 1. Pages 1-2.
---. 1904. Eureka! Bovinia 1. Pages 2-3.
Fishbein, Günther. 1998. On the MIYH – Evidence from St. Bloomfield. Bovinia 32. Pages 32-33 ½.
Marschwitz, Marvin. 1984. Cows are Martians. Dordrecht: Foris.
McMuffins, L.F. 1987. Why the discovery of the MIYH makes me smart. Bovinia 32. Pages 30-32.
Pudgkins, Wally. 2002. Problems in Cow Semantics Revisted. Bovinia 47. Pages 9,032-9,033.