[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xod:
> 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".
"Any" = "su'o" (within the scope of something else). There is no mystery
about the logic of "any".
In CLL Lojban, {lo} is a dummy gadri. It has no meaning of its own other
than to signal that it is the full membership of {lo'i broda} that is
being quantified over: IOW, its only meaning is that it is not {le}. It
could be done away with in CLL Lojban, except in {PA lo PA}, and even
there it could probably be replaced by some terminator or other (-- I
say this without checking the grammar, though).
> This leaves lo's pesky existence-asserting aspect as the last objection.
lo does not assert existence. lo is always preceded by a quantifier, and
it is the quantifier that asserts existence.
Of course, xorxes & I support ditching the rule "bare lo = su'o lo", in
favour of "bare lo = tu'o lo = Kind/Mr". This is one of the three small
changes to CLL that solve all our problems at a stroke.
> 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.]
{(su'o) lo broda} can always be paraphrased as "There is at least one
broda". "broda, which exists" is a foolish paraphrase, because it fails
for quantifiers which don't claim existence: !!"every broda, which exists"
!!"no broda, which exists".
> 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)
Yes.
> 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.
They weren't abolished at all; they're a crucial ingredient of xorxes's
scheme. But you and xorxes & I are in agreement about wanting to ditch
the "bare lo = su'o lo" rule.
--And.