[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Bob:
> At 01:03 AM 8/12/03 +1000, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> >I also
> >accept that Bob, when he fumbles for a reason to reject {lo} = {da
> >poi}, is probably thinking intensions without realising it.
[...]
> My own concept of "lo" (and I did invent the thing), was based on Loglan's
> article (le'u?) which was used for universal claims about a set, and was
> translated as "all those which really are members of the set".
> I personally don't like "lo" as equating to "da poi", and it implies to me
> that JCB's le'u would have been "ro da poi".
Given these statements, I think Nick & xorxes are right that 'Kind' comes
closest to what you describe. "All those which really are" is an odd
paraphrase of 'Kind', but a good paraphrase of "ro da poi", but Kind seems
to be a way to make universalish statements about unicorns.
> Except to the extent that it explicitly appears in CLL, extensionalism is
> not to me a cornerstone. I am resigned to change in the definitions of
the
> gadri, so I want them to
Speaking for me & xorxes:
> a) have le and its series preserve "in mind" (meaning non-veridical and
> probably +specific) as its essential property,
We agree.
> probably with ro as the default outer quantifier
We prefer no default outer quantifier (i.e tu'o) for le.
> b) have lo and its series preserve "veridical" (and probably -specific) as
> its essential property,
We agree.
> probably with su'o as the default outer quantifier.
We prefer no default outer quantifier (i.e tu'o) for lo.
> c) match usage insofar as is possible (with my own stronger attachment to
> usage of le/lei/loi)
We agree, though gadri usage has been pretty messy and errorful.
> I would prefer that the solution NOT have "lo" as a mere abbreviation for
> "da poi", but will accept it if necessary, if only to respect CLL.
Nobody has formulated a concrete proposal for how lo could differ from
da poi. It's not just that CLL says they're equivalent; it's also that no
alternative is even on the table.
There might be a cosmetic difference if the default quantifier changed
from (su'o)lo to (tu'o)lo but remained (su'o)da. Then bare lo *would*
be different from bare dapoi.
> I
> certainly believe that this equation, even if it is in CLL, is less than
> fundamental, but derived from a certain semantic theory that is not
> necessarily the one that will be adopted. I would prefer that if there is
> an issue on extensionality/intensionality, that it be explicitly marked by
> cmavo, if this is possible, with the unmarked form being neutral, but
> possibly having a default value depending on the existence of the referent
> (if that last doesn't make sense, then ignore it).
I don't share this preference, but the XS proposal from xorxes & me offers
a way: have no default outer quantifier (not even zi'o-type tu'o) except
a zo'e-like quantifier. Glorking a zi'o-type tu'o, or using that quantifier
overtly, gives intensional, while glorking a nonnull quantifier, or using
one overtly, gives extensional. IOW, this is a feasible compromise solution.
> My own usage has generally involved "loi" rather than "lo" among the
> members of that series, so I am more strongly attached to usage-preserving
> "loi";
A usage-preserving loi is doable, I think.
> (I think that my insistence on defining the current language is relevant
> here. Nick clearly has some ideas of what is essential about the current
> baseline, and I have different ones, and Cowan possibly others. The point
> of defining the existing baseline before considering changes is to make it
> clear to all of us just what the axioms are that we cannot accept changes
> to. If we cannot even agree on the axioms, we cannot derive any
consistent
> result.)
I think that the only essentials can be what CLL actually says. Beyond that
we have just private opinion.
--And.