[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > If Kinds are 1-1 with properties, would it not be more parsimonious > to just use properties, and simply predicate new things of them? > In particular, if the kind Fat-Snake is a kind of Snake, so the > property of being a fat snake is a subproperty of the property of > being a snake But when you treat a property as a Kind, you see that Kind as occurring wherever things that manifest the property occur. Not wrongly, we treat properties as incomplete propositions, but while you can eat Mr Apple, you can't eat an incomplete proposition! If we were to strive for parsimony we could perhaps do without properties and make do just with Kinds. But I haven't yet thought about where relations fit in to this picture. > Likewise with collectives and sets, for which the gimste provides > precedent. I am now beginning to swallow the idea that you can > burn a set. We will see whether I need to be an anaconda or not Do you think we can dispense with the distinction between a set and a collective? My inclination is to think that you can't burn a set. But I'm not sure whether we need to talk about sets as distinct from collectives. --And.