[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote: > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:41:56 +0100 > > > From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@hidden.email> > > > Subject: essentials of a gadri system > > > > > > As a contribution to the discussion, I thought I'd sketch > > > what I think the essentials of a gadri system would be. I > > > am ignoring both the current system, and the question of > > > how to express these essentials verbally. > > > > Accepted. For my part, I have put my contribution on wiki, at > > http://www.lojban.org/wiki/index.php/gadri%20report%2C%20aug%202003 > > > In your definitions of intension and extension, where does specificity > enter in? lo mikce is by definition "nonspecific", making it intensional, > yet it's defined as "da poi broda", which by your explanation is the > archetype of extension! This above was lost in the shuffle, unanswered. So I'll add to it. On the subway, reading Nick's article, I realized another place where he had already answered a question that we were chewing today. He says 'Likewise, the generic statement "Dogs make good pets" ignores the distinction between Fido, Rover, and Azor; it even ignores the exceptions like Fifi...' And there is also my previous argument: that a Mr. Bird who satisfies the exact characteristics of every real bird in turn is a trippy idea but no different from discussing the actual birds taken as individuals. Therefore, I no longer think that Mr. Bird is sometimes a carnivore and sometimes an herbivore. Such a question should be answered na'i. Mr. Bird has 2 wings, feathers, and a beak, and flies. The cases of single-winged or flightless birds are ignored like Fifi. I now see 3 concepts. a) The quality of birdness; kamcipni. Abstract. b) The Prototype Bird. Claims about b are claims about the definition of "cipni". Intensional? Uncountable, or countably one. c) A Prototype-Instance of Bird. Claims about an instance do not reflect upon the definition or any other instances. Extensional? Countable. Now for some bold, unfounded claims. 1) b = CLL-lo'e = lo'e'e. And that c = Jorge-lo'e = lo'e'a = Mister = lo jai ka broda. 2) b is almost useless, and can indeed be better expressed by ka'u lo'e'a na'o broda cipni. 3) The intensional/extensional relationship between these 2 should be explored and exploited, unless I'm mistaken and it doesn't really exist. But it seems to me that b is some sort of a symbol for the members of c, such that some LAhE applied to b should give us an instance of b which is a c. 4) If the nonspecificity of lo is ever going to be taken seriously, we will see that it relates to interchangable prototype instances, and is so closely related to lo'e'a that there is no need for both to exist. -- The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...