[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick to Lojbab: > I'm not going to define de dicto and de re for you as well; that's been > bandied once too often for me to think you don't know it --- resolving > it in all contexts is a crucial problem, which Lojban simply hasn't > dealt with, since it assumes propositionalism (you can always find an > inner nested prenex to quantify an intensional sumti --- something not > true for 'draw', and misleading even for 'want'.) A while back I did work out a propositionalist solution for all known cases, but I didn't bother posting it to the list because I felt that there was no point, because we still didn't want to do without Kinds. My solution was done on paper, so I don't have it, but for drawing I think it would be something like: "There is a drawing, d, such that it depicts an imaginary state of affairs (du'u) in which there is a snake depicted by d". I don't want to reopen a debate about propositionalism at this stage. Regardless of whether propositionalism can do everything, we definitely agree that it requires special predicates to do it, and that people are generally not willing to redefine gismu propositionalistically or to accept that gismu can't be used intensionally. Hence one of the rationales for the need for kinds. --And.