IN I957 PETER GEACH ARGUED THAT Ockham's theory of mental language was too facile, that it made the grammar of mental language look too suspiciously like that of Latin: "He merely transfers features of Latin grammar to Mental, and then regards this as explaining why such features occur in Latin they are needed there if what we say inwardly in Mental is to be outwardly got across to others in Latin. But clearly nothing is explained at all. ''1 In 1970 John Trentman responded to this charge in a short article that has since become very influential. 2 In that article Trentman makes three claims among others: 1. Ockham thought of mental language as a kind of stripped-down, "ideal" language, containing just those grammatical features that affect the truth conditions of mental sentences.3 2. There can be no synonymy in mental language. 4 3. There can be no equivocation in mental language. 5 It is the purpose of this paper to examine each of these claims in turn. 6 In so doing we
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.