[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 08/09/2012 03:29:> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote: But we should remember theI expressed myself badly. (II) involves formally modelling the extralinguistic world, including possible worlds, and defining correspondence rules between logical forms and, let's say, models of states of affairs. To take a concrete example, proponents of (II) want a rigid definition of cathood to be part of the language (hence questions about what exactly is la mlta). In contrast, for proponents of (I)-only, mlt in logical form is a pointer to the mlt entry in the encyclopedia of everything, but the contents of that entry are external to (I)-only language.
> distinction between (I) rules that map a sentence's phonological
> form to its logical form, and (II) rules that map logical forms to
> (stuff in) (possible) worlds. We do know from past discussions on
> Lojban list that some folk, including John Clifford, want of a
> logical language that it do not only (I) but also (II), whereas
> others, including me and Jorge, want only that it do (I), considering
> (II) to be essentially extralinguistic and unachievable and
> potentially overly restrictive for users.
>
> Therefore, folk who are after (II) are really after a different
> project than Xorban is. However, to make a Xorban-B they could still
> use the grammar of Xorban and simply add on type-(II) rules.
>
> I find this (I) versus (II) distinction very puzzling. As far as I
> can see, possible worlds have an essential part to play in the
> logical form underlying human language semantics, and they must be
> incorporated in Xorban if it is to be a human language. Every human
> being without the slightest formal linguistic training easily grasps
> lines like "I coulda been a contender", and that line clearly
> invokes a possible world. What on earth is "essentially
> extralinguistic and unachievable" about that?
I don't want to close down fruitful debate, but on this specific issue that bothers you so, I've been seeing eye to eye with Jorge for twenty years(!), and for most of that time you've been objecting. I think this has been demonstrated to be a case where we aren't going to reach consensus, so we need to look for alternative solutions. Here are some suggested solutions:
A. If you can live with lV and are happy with just sV and rV, just let the matter rest.
B. If you can live with lV, but want another new quantifier, have a go persuading the rest of us that it is needed and not already covered by lV.
C. If you can't live with lV, define a variant dialect of Xorban in which lV is abolished or given a different definition.