@article {1473,
	title = {Predik{\'a}ty vkusu a ich s{\'e}mantika},
	journal = {Filozofia},
	volume = {67},
	number = {7},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {518-529},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {The paper deals with the so-called predicates of taste. There seems to be the following conflict concerning such predicates: Let {\textquotedblleft}{\textellipsis} P{\textellipsis}{\textquotedblright} be a sentence involving a predicate of taste, P. It may happen that one speaker, A, utters {\textquotedblleft}{\textellipsis} P{\textellipsis}{\textquotedblright} and another one, B, utters {\textquotedblleft}It is not the case that {\textellipsis} P{\textellipsis}{\textquotedblright} without contradicting each other. On the other hand, it may also happen that if A utters {\textquotedblleft}{\textellipsis} P{\textellipsis}{\textquotedblright} and B utters {\textquotedblleft}It is not the case that {\textellipsis} P{\textellipsis}{\textquotedblright} they do contradict each other. The purported conflict is solved within a theory called minimal indexicalism. It is claimed that the conflict disappears when we admit that, in the first scenario, A and B, though using the same words, express different propositions and that, in the second scenario, A and B adopt different criteria for evaluating the same proposition.},
	keywords = {Minimal indexicalism, Predicate of taste, Sentential radical, Testing situation, Truth-conditions},
	author = {Zouhar, Mari{\'a}n}
}
