In article <BC4F9A03.100C4%fred.mailhot at videotron.ca>, Fred Mailhot
<fred.mailhot at videotron.ca> writes
>On 2/11/04 3:11 AM, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> EO: Oh, memory is not of the past, great, then
>> perhaps it is of future? Trust me, this is non-sense.
>>>> GS: I remember that I have to give a lecture later today. If I said "I
>> remembered that I gave a lecture today." you would say that I am
>> "remembering the past event." By the same token if I say "I remember that I
>> have to give a lecture later today." we must say that I am remembering a
>> future event. That is certainly how the language game is played. Trust me.
>>Bzzzt!! Incommensurability in action...
>>Glen & Eray are using "memory" differently above, and so the argument is
>moot...
>
As I have said elsewhere - remembering (that) is an intensional context.
--
David Longley
