[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la adam cusku di'e
>
> >As
> >I recall, John and I wanted the abstraction to a singleton to be based
> >on more or less all the lions in the world, and And and Jorge thought
> >that it could be based on a small, context-determined set of lions, or
> >even on just a single lion (to which I responded that they should use
> >le'e for this). (I'm probably misrepresenting someone's position here,
> >so please correct me.)
>
> I don't base the abstraction on a small context-determined set. If
> there is a lion in front of you, and you conceptualize the world
> as if there is just one lion, then The Lion is in front of you,
> that's all. You only have to look at the situation to describe
> the situation. A claim using {lo'e cinfo} is not a claim about
> each lion, it only uses the intension of {lo'i cinfo}
I agree. As I see it, Adam and John want to insist on myopically
singularizing from a god's-eye perspective, whereas xorxes and
me are happy to do it from a highly subjective, context-dependent
perspective. As I said when this was discussed before, I think
this is not something for the Lojban design to pronounce on one
way or the other.
> >I never thought of it as using possible worlds, but rather as
> >suggesting that we reconceptualize this world and think of all lions as
> >being one, and in fact I think that that's how And originally
> >formulated it
>
> I agree. It is not related to possible worlds
I agree too. Quite possibly Jordan can blame me for offering a
misleading definition in one place or another; I plead only that
the intent was to enlighten not to mislead, and that any
crapness in my attempted definition should not be taken to
undermine the basic intuitive idea of myopic singularization.
--And.