[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Invent Yourself wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote: > > > > 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! > > > > I think I've just realised why we never agreed on lo != any. Extensional > > can still be non-specific. In "I saw a doctor", you don't have a name > > for the doctor in mind, so they aren't specific. But you could > > meaningfully attach a name to them --- interpret the sentence with a > > specific reference --- and it would be meaningful; model theoretical > > semantics works on that very premiss --- you interpret non-specific > > sentences like "I saw a doctor" by enumerating the possible assignments > > of a specific value to the referent. In intensional contexts, by > > contrast, there can be no specific referent plugged in without changing > > the semantic completely. "I saw Dr Fred" is a subset of "I saw a > > doctor"; "I looked for Dr Fred" is not a subset of "I looked for a > > doctor, any doctor". > > > Not so fast! "Any doctor" is trivially expanded into a long list of every > Doctor's name. This is pragmatically problematic, but not structurally so: > "I will admit any two of your children into my program.", "Open either of > your hands.". > > I am attacking your examples of internsionality, but I do agree that there > are two distinct operations at work here: one is describing an in-mind > item, the other is discussing a set of characteristics and whatever items > may fit that bill. Any instance of nonspecificity is doing the latter, not > the former! I reiterate that the specificity and interchangability are > what we should be focusing on. "Any" is related not to intensionality but > to interchangability, and therefore, to "lo". This leaves lo's pesky existence-asserting aspect as the last objection. Because while we feel safe in asserting that doctors exist, that is not generally true when discussing reifications. [Let me insert a quick diversion and rail against the interpretation, which was seen even today, of lo broda as "There exists a broda" (ly. poi broda cu zasti), instead of "broda, which exists," (ly. noi zasti). There has been a verb-like presence creeping into "lo" which doesn't belong there, and I think it's been adding some confusion.] The convention of lo broda = da poi broda is tenuous and indirect; if I recall correctly, I believe it's the result of the indirect description principle that pa broda = pa lo broda, and another convention operating on da. (6.8 + 16.6) It is a derived, second-class principle, and weaker than the explicit, repeated statements declaring the nonspecificity of lo. But nonspecificity refers to the specifity of referents; the filtering concept is understood quite specifically. And while in some cases the referents do exist, in others they may not; if nonspecificity is taken seriously, guaranteed existence claims are absurd. Lastly, there is already a gadri of sorts which achieves exactly the "da poi" action of lo: "su'o". The use of su'o as an existential gadri lacks only one part: the inner quantifier. But in Jorge's dream scheme, they were abolished. -- 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...