From a570747f4d5b71bf3013e2080c44a99615d36a3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: phoebe jenkins <pjenkins@tula-health.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 12:00:35 -0400
Subject: folks i believe that's the base style structure for the whole dang
 thing

---
 extra/primary_study_paraphrase.tex | 13 +++----------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

(limited to 'extra/primary_study_paraphrase.tex')

diff --git a/extra/primary_study_paraphrase.tex b/extra/primary_study_paraphrase.tex
index 74f9910..ad1d4df 100644
--- a/extra/primary_study_paraphrase.tex
+++ b/extra/primary_study_paraphrase.tex
@@ -1,15 +1,8 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 \chapter{Primary Study: Informal Paraphrase (1979)}
 
+\fancyhead{} \fancyfoot{} \fancyfoot[LE,RO]{\thepage}
+\fancyhead[LE]{\textsc{Appendix \rtriltri Additional Works}} \fancyhead[RO]{\textit{Primary Study: Informal Paraphrase (1979)}}
+
 Consider the assertion that there is (meaningful) language at some time and place---that is, something more than arbitrary marks on paper, something with objective rules and referents. The assertion that there is some language should be a descriptive assertion. (In fact, a descriptive assertion, about natural language, in a natural language.)\footnote{Logical positivists may object that the assertion that there is language is and should be analytic (or meaningless). But this objection cannot be sustained. The attempt to find a criterion which will exclude some grammatical English sentences as meaningless (or analytic) without excluding too many, and without being arbitrary, has always failed. Indeed, is it not so, that one brings out the concepts of "analytic" and "meaningless" arbitrarily, to cover up embarrassing problems? Existence claims, that is, descriptive assertions of the form `There is \uline{\qquad}', are unavoidable in cognition. And it is not plausible that any grammatical natural-language statement is true independently of all experiential or contingent considerations. Nor can an arbitrary, unsubstantiated condemnation of some grammatical statements in the natural language as meaningless be respected. And a retreat to artificial languages cannot evade the questions at issue above.}
 
 The questions at issue here cannot be evaded by retreating to artificial languages, because artificial languages cannot be constructed, or explained, or taught, independently of the natural languages. (Which is why I don't use logical symbols in this study.)
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

