[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 12:40 AM 12/19/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote: > >(1) Does anyone know how many intensional preds we have? > > Is there any way to ensure that a pred CANNOT be used intensionally? Yes. The rules for translating Lojban into logic mean that arguments must be given the transparent reading. > >(5) Do we want intensional arguments like this used freely anywhere in > >a place structure, or strictly susbcategorised and appearing only with > >a handful of gismu? > > At present there is no restriction on any argument form appearing anywhere, > and we've found that trying to make restrictive rules has only encouraged > people to come up with exceptions Most or many cases where a sumti place gets filled in usage by both a nonabstraction sumti and an abstraction sumti mean either that one of the two is nonsensical and doesn't say what it is intended to, or that the predicate is polysemous/ambiguous and so violates basic Formalist principles of Lojban. --And.