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

Intensional critters are actually a rather rare lot in conversation. Why take up a very useful extensional notion (long scope s, if you will) for them. Especially when all the cases so far cited are nicely handled with extensional tools and abstractors (abstractors setting up alternate worlds, within which extensional tools remain extensional, only appearing intensional when viewed from our world.)

Your example in two clearly says that the cat is a real one, regardless of what happens with l.

f doesn't say that the event or whatever is not in this world, it just opens that possibility. We may take all the precautions we want and still find that the picture is of the artist's cat, Pushkin.

From: Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com>
To: engelang@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [engelang] intensions & extensions (Xorban)

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:31 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.

Yes, that's where I lean.

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.

I think that unspecified for extensionality would effectively be the same as intensional. Either way "l-" in "se li mlti pxreki vska'ake" wouldn't entail whether the pictured cat is imaginary or real; in fact unless we knew who created the picture and why, we couldn't be sure.

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".

If "l-" were intensional then I think the f- and h- distinction would be unnecessary. I think we need a predicate or operator that somehow means "imaginary/possible but nonexistent in the world of the containing formula" which I think is what you're after, but I am unsure how to derive that.