[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
unquantified gadri: ambiguous between intension and extension --- between appearing in the prenex or not
quantified: extensional LAhE3 LE gadri: intensionalThe ambiguity of {lo mikce} sucks, but I think it politically necessary now. Those who would (a) exoticise Lojban (hello xod) or (b) are semantic formalists who wish to make up for lost time and emphasise intensionality wheresoever it roams should use LAhE3 and LAhE4 (= lo se ka?) whensoever possible, and let it be known that by default their unquantified {lo} is extensional. But in mandating an extensional {lo} always, unquantified or not, I'm going by the letter of CLL and what I'd like to see, but not by the spirit: CLL is barely aware of intension outside propositionalism (and if it ever skicu, I'm sure it skicu fi lo), Bob didn't intend it, and I think enough people are wavering.
An intensional-only unquantified lo is still unacceptable to me. An ambiguous lo, to be disambiguated by extra stuff (quantification vs LAhE), however, is The Lojban Way. It breaks the presumption of prenexing, but I'm convinced default tu'o actually breaks usage. If I say {lo mikce cu cpedu lo sodva}, I sure as hell ain't talking either Mr Doctor or Intension of Doctor.
Note that Kind is *not* necessary the solution to intensions. Kind is perfectly usable in extensional contexts --- the fish and chips example --- and there can equally be intensional, non-existent but distinct entities. We may seriously see And's Kind split into LAhE3 and LAhE4, Mr and Intension: Uniqueness is not necessarily the same as Intension. That's the way John was heading in February. So the work is nowhere near done.
Furthermore, Jordan still has to accept this; and Jordan last I heard thought propositionalism was adequate. The description of the crow by the fox has to be the lydian stone: if Lojbanists feel you can {skicu fi lo} at all, as opposed to {skicu fi lo ka} or {skicu fi lo se ka}, then And's XS-lite can stand.
If not, then not, and we go back to extensional lo. That's a question simple enough we can even strawpoll it on bpfk.Responses. In particular, I ex officio charge list members who are not And, Jorge and xod to comment.
||| "Assuming, for whatever reasons, that neither scholar presented the evidence properly, then there remains a body of evidence you have not yet destroyed because it has never been presented." --- Harold Fleming|NickNicholas|Dept.French&ItalianStudies|UniversityOfMelbourne|Australia | | nickn@hidden.email http://www.opoudjis.net |