[hist-analytic] Tarski, Carnap and Grice on "snow is white"

[Jlsperanza at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/5/2010 9:29:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rbj at rbjones.com writes:
and my example was offered as an analytic  
proposition in the metalanguage,
 
---
 
Oops, thanks for that. 
 
So if I'm following. Since English can be the Meta-language, we don't  
really need a formal proof, as it were that something is analytic _in_ the  
meta-language. But I guess the idea is to proceed, _informally_, as we have  
proceeded, _formally_, in the construction of the object-language. I suppose 
the  mere _examination_ of a claim (in the meta-language) would be enough for 
the  analyst to judge whether it is analytic or not. My procedure would be 
to refer  to something like the corresponding object-language tautology, i.e. 
the  meta-language analytic sentence _sans_ quotation marks, as it were. 
But there  may be more complications. Where would philosophy be without them?!