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

I suppose h does something like that (though it is hard to tell). What is the point of marking predicates (and, more importantly, terms) to this world; this is the given state and only deviations need to be noted. To be sure, it is occasionally useful, once deep in an alternate world to have a device to pop out for a moment.
In that regard, &'s possibly ambiguous example, isn't really: it compels a world (well, a situation at least) to contain unicorns (nice to see them back, this discussion wouldn't be the same without 'em) an furthermore, it is one of them, that is pictured (or several of them, depending on the picture).

From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [engelang] intensions & extensions (Xorban)

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:31 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".

Why do we want this special treatment for f-predicates and not for
every predicate? Wouldn't it be better to have an n- that fixes a
predicate to this world? Perhaps "na'a", corresponding to Lojban's
"ca'a".

ma'a xrxe