[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:01 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote: > > I haven't worked through the threads that talk about f very thoroughly > yet, so I a unclear how it functions syntactically. It's very much like Lojban NU, except there's only one of it instead of all the different NUs. la fa se xrme bjre snva'aka A/state-of-affairs(A) in which (some E/horse(E): runs(E)): dream(me,A) I dream that some horse runs. se xrme la fa bjre snva'aka some E/horse(E): A/state-of-affairs(A) in which runs(E): dream(me,A) For some horse, I dream that it runs. "fa <formula>" is basically the same as "NU <bridi>". There is, of course, no special distinction made between fa predicates and other predicates. "fa se xrme bjre" is a one-place predicate just like "xrma". > 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. You do, however, make a distinction in Lojban between "lo nu ... kei" and "lo xirma". You accept for "lo nu ... kei" to be sometimes a myopic singular and sometimes one of its instances, but you don't accept the same for "lo xirma". > 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. Why not? ma'a xrxe