COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Dear Professor Quine:
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
Dear Professor Quine:

	I can't claim to have been misled by your 1947 paper.  I must
learn not to lightly ascribe views to people, even if it sometimes
results in a letter from someone I admire.

	On looking at my paper, I see that what appeared in {\it Daedalus}
doesn't correspond to my latest computer file on the subject.
In {\it Daedalus} it says, ``His nominalism suggests $\ldots$'' and in my
computer file it says ``Nominalism suggests $\ldots$''.  It looks
like somebody got to me about calling you a nominalist before you
did, but the correction didn't make it into the published version.

	As to ``nonmonotonic logic'', I did coin the term
``non-monotonic reasoning'' in a 1977 paper and have subsequently
gone along with omitting the dash.  I was appealing to the existing
use of the adjective ``nonmonotonic'' in mathematics.  It refers to the
set of conclusions of reasoning not being a monotonic increasing
function of the set of premisses.  For this reason, I don't see
that ``polytonic'' would do unless mathematics as a whole could
be persuaded to change.

	I do see a need for intensional objects in languages for
the use of AI programs.

	I plan to be at Harvard from next semester until Christmas,
and if you are interested in them, I would very much like to
discuss these issues.

Sincerely,