Keelefilosoofia raamat
much help.
I suppose some positivists thought of the principle as a faithful, correct
definition that captures the antecedent meaning of "meaning." The trouble
with that idea is that we do not know what specifically semantic evidence
would bear out the definition as correct. Certainly the positivists had not
subjected the term "meaning" to the sort of analysis that Russell had lavished
on the word "the"; and neither ordinary people nor nonpositivist philoso-
phers shared many intuitive judgments in line with the Verification Principle.
It does not seem to be analytic, like "No bachelor is married"; I doubt that
anyone who understands what the word "meaning" means and what "verify"
means knows that to be meaningful is just to be verifiable and that a sen-
tence's meaning is its verification condition.
Suppose the principle is taken to be empirically verifiable. That is, assume
annaabi.ee 
