Well, as far as I can see, the description of Xorban out in the docs does just fine for me, barring the strange predicates and variable (which I know are only tentative, but annoying nonetheless). The only obvious difference -- which doesn't show in the syntax but only in the interpretation -- is in l. Mine is just an ordinary quantifier with the power to jump to the head of the prenex, totally familiar and established item,. &'s is rather to describe, but does have some peculiar properties in addition to (in effect) context leaping, namely a curious collapse of all the Aja tiers over its reference class. No one has yet explained what this collapse accomplishes, other than tying in with a particular interpretation -- which, of course, we are not supposed to bring into the discussion of syntax. Sorry, my version is just about what one would expect, given the general understanding of "logical language", and seem so far to do what is asked of it. Where is it deficient and where &lang superior?
Sent from my iPad
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:50 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
Of course, I don't believe a moment of it. Most of these interpretation don't do what they are meant to do on the linguistic level. And, in keeping with that, neither does MV R. As you note with startling honesty, MV R need have nothing to do with R. And yet the whole point of all this is to explain expressions which a seriously about R. To be sure, in a lila model, where everything is about the performing deity, being the deity is always relevant, but even then, when talking about rabbits, it is the deity rabbiting, not just the deity in se that is called for.
So, I'll stick with my context-leaping s, until some one comes up with a case that it can't solve. And then I'll work out from it rather than jumping to cloud-cuckoo land.
If you ever work out a formal description of Djanban, please let us know. I think it would be interesting to have something tangible built on a different design outlook to compare to Xorban. Of course Xorban has to handle extensions just as your language will need to handle intensions, so I think the putative differences may be (slightly) less dramatic than what sometime seem to be suggested in these discussions. But I'd definitely welcome the opportunity to study what you have in mind in a form (much) less baroque than Old Lojban.
|