[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > Consider: > > > > This is a scheme for turning lead into gold > > This is a knife for cutting the foreskins off snails > > This is a spoon for ladling out any leftovers > > > > None of these entail that there is an event of lead turning into gold, > > that there is a snail's foreskin, or that there are any leftovers > > Ah, that was helpful. I think the "FOR" is about capability rather than > intent, and I say that #2 cannot be true, because there is no knife > with the capability of cutting the foreskins off snails, since snails > have no foreskins. Ditto #1. As for #3, it should be paraphrased as > "I intend that this spoon be used to ladle leftovers". I think that "*intended* function" is a key element of the definition of many categories. (E.g. is allows us to discriminate between screwdrivers and chisels, which differ in their intended function, even though each can do the other's job.) Mere capability is insufficient. A wastepaper basket is capable of being used as a hat, but that is not its intended function, and hence a wastepaper basket is not a hat (unless it is being used as one). It seems perverse of you to claim that it cannot be true that I have a scheme for turning lead into gold. As for #3, I would agree with a paraphrase as "This spoon is intended to be used to ladle any leftovers" -- that is, I agree that it involves intended use. --And.