[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 11/4/2002 2:30:58 AM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes: << >though the implicit internal {su'o} does >> Whereas I think they are presuppositional and hence out of the sentence in another way -- but veridical. << But if the in-mind thing is an intensionally-defined set, i.e. the referent of {le'i}, then {le no} is not excluded. >> This is getting close to an almost plausible account of empty references and it might even seem to work if {le'i} is primitive as & postulates. But the notion of a primitive defined set seems at odds with standard practice and an "intensionally-defined" set is barely intelligible, unless it means "set defined by its property," which is just how sets are usually defined, so not worth mentioning (and, of course, means that the set is not the primitive notion). << In any > case, if there aren't any, the claim automatically goes to Untrue. Give or take the issue of presupposition. >> "Untrue" was picked to take that consideration into account -- especially since I think that is often crucial. |