[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
>
> >The contention: that "any-x" and Intensional/opaque readings
> >readings reduce to quantification within the scope of some
> >world-straddling predicate; or, that Any-x and Intensional
> >readings can be captured without the use of intensional gadri
>
> My gut reaction to propositionalism is that it may be correct
> in the sense that it satisfactorily accounts for the
> underlying meaning of what we want to express, but that
> it is wrong in the sense that it is not the way I want
> to express myself
As long as a sentence encodes a definite determinable logical
formula, I'm all for having the most userfriendly surface
structure possible.
> > What we need is a selbri, "x is world of which y is true"
> >It could be a lujvo, but I'll define a NU, {jei'u}, to do
> >the job: "x1 is a world of which the abstraction is true"
> >This then gives us:
> >
> > da ro de poi da je'u de is Danish mermaid zo'u I will write
> > a poem about de
> >
> >And for "This depicts three snakes":
> >
> > da zo'u ti pixra ci poi'i da jei'u ke'a since
>
> These examples make me want to define a new cmavo
> {loi'ei} = {lo poi'i da jei'u ke'a} (with an implicit {su'o da}
> somewhere in the prenex), so that they become:
>
> mi ba te pemci ro loi'ei danko fipni'u
>
> ti pixra ci loi'ei since
>
> > This solution is not always satisfactory, though. Consider:
> >
> > This branch has the shape of three intertwined snakes
> >
> >It is not enough to say there are in some world three snakes
> >that have the shape of this branch. That statement would presumably
> >be true whatever the shape of the branch
>
> I'm not sure I see the difference between a picture
> depicting three snakes and a branch resembling three
> snakes.
A depictee can be the 'subject-matter' or the 'iconically
signified':
"This picture is about X" (subject matter)
"This picture looks like X" (iconically signified)
Texts usually don't iconically signify, but do have subject matter.
Branches don't have subject matter, but do iconically signify.
Pictures typically iconically signify their subject matter. So
'picture' is ambiguous.
> Wouldn't the picture statement too be true whatever
> the picture? For that matter, couldn't we say that for
> every poem there is some world in which its subject
> matter is a Danish mermaid? Maybe we need some implicit
> restriction on worlds
There surely are certain ontological restrictions, though I
don't know whether they are part of the language per se. For
example, I don't think that one thing can exist in the spacetime
of more than one world: if something is a dog in one world,
then it isn't a dog in any other world. Everything that is
a dog in this world exists in the spacetime of this world,
but not everything that is depicted in this world exists in
the spacetime of this world.
> >4. Psych-predicates
>
> > "Lex Luther is afraid of Superman but Lex Luther is not afraid
> > of Clark Kent."
> [...]
> > Lex Luther -fears LEka me ce'u ro me LA superman
>
> But this -fears is not the same ordinary {terpa}, unless
> terpa is polysemous. It is what I called {kairterpa}
That's why I didn't use {terpa}. But it's not {kairterpa},
though, is it, because {kairterpa}'s x2 would be {LEka ce'u
du LA superman}.
> >5. "mi djica LEnu broda" means "I want that LEnu broda be actual (be
> >fasnu)". But which nu broda? -- *Any* one nu broda. How do we
> >express this? There is no propositionalist solution. One solution
> >is to kill quantification by singularizing nu broda (e.g. by
> >{piroloinu}. A better solution is to use a predicate that means
> >"I want that p be true", which has the benefit of allowing nu to
> >behave like all other predicates in having an extension that varies
> >from world to world. Thus: "mi -wants LEdu'u broda"
>
> I agree that this is the predicate we would want for
> propositionalism to work. I also agree that nu should be
> an ordinary predicate, so that ro nu broda cu fasnu
> But for the same reason I don't want properties as x2
> of sisku or terpa, I don't want du'u as the x2 of djica
No problem, so long as {djica} can be unambiguously translated
into 'wants LEdu'u co'e to be true'.
--And.