Re: [engelang] intensions & extensions (Xorban) - engelang messages

I haven't worked through the threads that talk about f very thoroughly yet, so I a unclear how it functions syntactically. As you will recall, however, I don't like intensional arguments (although I use that _expression_ I admit) but rather extensional (in the present universe) abstract arguments which create intensional contexts for terms within themselves. This is(though badly described and carried out in places) the Lojban approach and other suggested approaches seem both more complex and less effective. How close f comes to this line is just not clear, since there is not much (any?) discussion of abstractions in Xorban. In any case, it does not appear that f reduces intensionality to merely a matter of scope, which I take to be the crucial point.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:31 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:

Some preliminary not-deeply-thought-out suggestions:

1. Let s- & r- be extensional, in the sense that in s/ra Ra Pa, Ra and Pa are in the same world.
2. I can't make up my mind about l-; I've been vacillating back and forth between having it be like s- and r- and having it unspecified for extensionality. Again, in the sense that la Ra Pa, Ra and Pa are in the same world. I think I'm inclining towards the unspecified option.
3. Split f- into intensional (world-shifting) and nonintensional versions, say f- and h-. It can be a bit verbose, tho: "la fa la sma pvjrna pxro'ekaka'a" as opposed to the ambiguous (or extensional) "la pvjrna pxro'ekaka'a".

--And.