[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
some more responses to pc's other comments: > >The bit about a name having to have a property to be used comes from the > >fact that names are quantifiers (this cuts the grammar size roughly in > >half, eliminating a vast array of duplicates) and quantifiers are all > >restricted (second order relations between sets). Taking the properties > >to be a haeceity was a mistake I remember arguing with (probably) Gaifman > >back when I was studying to be a Nyayika and so a believer in > >visheshas. Even without vishesha, using this as haeceity seems to me a > >bad idea, since it makes transworld comparisons (ctfs like "If Socrates > >were a Seventeenth century Irish washerwoman") impossible to deal with > >naturally Unfortunately this went over my head. If anyone can explain it to me at my level, I'd be interested. > >Back those damned unicorns. I still support the peculiar gadri (NOT any > >of the ones in standard -- nor, so far as I had seen when I took off, > >non-standrad [& and X] -- Lojban). As xorxes pointed out, what is > >involved is a buried quantifier -- one in another world if we must or one > >in what amounts to an equivalence -- though stronger than material. "I am > >looking for a unicorn" amounts to "I am on a quest which will be completed > >(/satisfied/relieved/...) just in case there is a unicorn I see (/capture > >/touch/...)" The fact that the critters involved here are regularly > >called "any one will do" shows that what is involved is purposive (do for > >what?) and intimately involved with notions like satisfaction. I would > >take this new gadri as an improper symbol, not translatable alone but > >pointing to longer expression that must be translated as a whole (that is, > >as a simple surface phenomenon from a very complex deep structure > >involving lexical replacements as well as syntactic ones) I have suggested a LAhE (or UI) for this purpose, rather than a gadri. --And.