[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban: Semantics of "l-" (and "s-" and "r-")

I envy you your grasp of how all this metaphysics works out (although I am not quite sure which of the several versions is being used at the moment).  I would have thought that both weighing 326 tons and 500 grams were just the sorts of things one could say about Mr. Squirrel (nice to change rodents) or about the set of squirrels or about squirrelhood or -ness, depending on which you are taking as basic and what predicate- argument connections you were using.  If &'s goal is to be realized (and that will say something about SWH), then the system (like Lojban now) will work equally well for all, but with radically different semantics.  But this is getting ahead of where Xorban is at the moment.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:33 PM, John Cowan <cowan@hidden.email> wrote:

 

And Rosta scripsit:

> That type-A ontology is to me and Jorge the most natural one, but to
> Martin, to John C, to John Woldemar, and probably to most folk schooled in
> logic (or even in common sense?) it isn't,

It's not that I think it makes no sense, just that it doesn't do all the
work that Lojban wants for its masses. You can't say "Mr. Squirrel weighs
326 tons", for example. On the other hand, you can say "Mr. Squirrel
weighs 500 grams" with it.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@hidden.email
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

=