[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> Hello over there. I'm still over here (as in, not participating.) My
> proofreading is pretty much done, so I will answer the last fortnight's
> emails next week
>
> My ideology of how to fix the gadri impasse remains unchanged, and I
> remind myself and you of it:
>
> (1) The Unique/Kind is a valid thing to introduce into Lojban (I do not
> eat the same meal as you do, but I do eat the same kind of meal), and
> deserves a LAhE
I have only just realized that a LAhE solution hits a snag because
there is no clear candidate to serve as the argument of the LAhE.
> (3) I object to an intensional gadri mainly because a distinct gadri
> implies a distinct ontology --- but in propositionalist contexts, our
> old gadri serve us just fine (mi djica tu'a lo mikce).
I think the intensional gadri is Kind, and hence is usable in non-
intensional contexts (e.g. meal eating). Xorxes has always taken
that view too. So AFAIK know, nobody is calling for an intensional
gadri distinct from Kind.
> If
> propositionalism covers all intensional contexts, there is no problem
> to solve: this dissolves into prenex placing. I think the sane thing to
> do is to keep the gadri even in non-propositionalist contexts, and
> attach kludges to do with da'i, ka'e, and as yet uninvented UI.
I propose a LAhE that means "the following quantifier does not have
the scope that its syntactic position would otherwise dictate". I
propose this also because over the years it has seemed as though
it might be useful. It could also be a UI.
> There
> are other solutions that should also be investigated before we latch on
> to a novel gadri -- such as 'Nixon prenexes' (the term is xod's,
> because I said that mid-sentence prenexes were first proposed in 1974)
I'm anti that, so it's up to somebody else to argue for it and
counter my counterarguments.
> Very often, we might need recourse to the other kludge, which is the
> lojbanmass: this clearly becomes the default for events instead of
> {lenu}, using the individual interpretation of the lojbanmass (the
> substance version makes no sense for events, and I doubt the collective
> one either; loinu as Any-event-x does, though.)
I don't understand why it would ever be *necessary* to have recourse
to Lojbanmass, since if Lojbanmass is essentially some sort of
disjunction of substance, collective and (you say) individual, then
the gadrioid for whichever of these is applicable would suffice.
I don't know how you can get loinu to mean "any-event-x", though.
When you need to say "any-event-x", use "Kind event x" or "du'u".
> But I don't think the answer is another gadrow (in fact it cannot be,
> since masses are also intensional),
Which sort of masses? John doesn't think anything is intensional.
> So what to do about {lo rismi} -- is it a cup or a grain of rice? Here,
> I'm inclined to go all metaphysical bias after all. If we know the
> entity to be saliently, prototypically individuated in real life, {lo}
> refers to such an individual. If not (as with rice and peas), {lo} is
> truly ambiguous, and should be interrogable, {lo dembi} can be either a
> bean or a go of beans. But unless you're on drugs, {pa lo nanmu} cannot
> be a sextet. Allow it under defeasible circumstances, if you must, but
> it must still be absurd
I agree.
> If something truly is an event, then what it describes truly happens in
> the world. If something truly is a proposition, all that is required of
> it to meet propositionhood is that it have a predicate and arguments.
> It is pernicious folly to confuse the factivity of nu with du'u: du'u
> is a claim. I hope we won't see this confusion again
I agree, but -- egregiously -- John takes "nu" to mean not "event"
but "kind of event". This would certainly be something I'd want to
see fixed in AL.
> Lots of confusion to be had in this stuff. One thing we're entitled to
> feel smug about, though. Just as the Chinese were stumped by "White
> Horse Not Horse", Montague was stumped by "The temperature rises. The
> temperature rises. Therefore, ninety rises?" Think of how that is said
> in Lojban. Lojban can't fall for that. And you'll see why equative 'is'
> really is bad for you
I'm not so sure that ordinary nonxorxesian Lojban can always escape
the trap. How do you say "the number of people in this room is
doubling every hour"?
--And.