Talk:言語学的実在論

言語学的実在論
I can't find uses of 言語学的実在論 (Google, Google Books), but I can find uses of 言語実在論 (Google, Google Books). Nibiko (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Even should this string be found in extant texts, how is it anything but SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd say so, which was why I refrained from linking to them as a whole. But, we seem to have an English entry for mathematical realism, which is the same thing as this but just swapping out the language part in the semantics for mathematics. I note that a number of the Japanese entries containing 実 have failed RFD for various reasons, most commonly SOP-ness. Nibiko (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (slight digression) I'm fine with having an entry for.
 * (main thread) But I'm baffled by the inclusion of an entry for, or even the English entry at -- these are just qualified kinds of the philosophical , with the multi-word terms fully understandable from their constituent parts, and as such these are not integral terms.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)