[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
OK, now I'm finally reading up on intensions, I am becoming very dangerous. :-) There is an ambigiuty in the English phrase The president of the U.S. will always be a Republican.1. If 'the president' refers to its extension (the guy currently holding the office, W), then this is merely saying that W will always be a Republican. Not a startling claim.
2. If 'the president' refers to the intension (whosoever the officeholder shall be at any particular time, as a function mapping time and world to any individual holding the office), that means there will never be a Dem prez.
You can distinguish between them with tense logic; for H = 'will always be the case',
1. Ax: Prez(x) => H(GOP(x)) 2. H(Ax: Prez(x) => GOP(x))You can distinguish between them with intensions; for ^x = the intension of x (the prez in general, as distinct from any individual prez; the function mapping times to individual prez's):
1. Prez(x) => GOP(x) 2. Prez(^x) => GOP(^x) ... So which of the two does lo merjatna baroroi prenrnrepubikana mean? Both? The latter?Obviously we can disambiguate sense 1 as {lo nau merjatna}. I presume sense 2 is: {ro da poi temci zo'u: lo merjatna be ca da}? Is it also {ro jaika ce'u merjatna} (which is properly {ro jaika ce'u merjatna de'i ce'u}, and indeed {ro jaika ce'u merjatna ma'i ce'u})? Is it {lo ka'e merjatna}?
Sorry guys, I'm only catching up to this stuff now... -- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@hidden.email * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****