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