[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Nick:
> Because what I'm defending isn't even in CLL -- which assumes
> propositionalism as the only way of dealing with intensions --- and
> because I have to be politic and surrender some axioms, I think I'll
> yield.
>
> unquantified gadri: ambiguous between intension and extension ---
> between appearing in the prenex or not
> quantified: extensional
> LAhE3 LE gadri: intensional
I still don't see how the "LAhE3 LE" works. If LE is quantified, then
it won't work. If it is unquantified, what does it mean (and if it
means Kind, then LAhE3 is redundant).
> The 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.
???? Is there a typo here? Extensionality arises from quantification. So
unquantified lo can't be extensional.
> But in mandating an extensional {lo}
> always, unquantified or not, I'm going by the letter of CLL
The letter of CLL says nothing whatever about unquantified lo or
unquantified
anything, because it assumes every sumti is quantified. This is why CLL is
extensionalist: it is silent about intensionalism.
> 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.
A compromise, which is consistent with CLL-intent, would be to make the
outer PA glorked. Glorking it as tu'o would give intensional. Glorking it
as something else would give extensional.
> An
> ambiguous lo, to be disambiguated by extra stuff (quantification vs
> LAhE), however, is The Lojban Way.
OK.
> It breaks the presumption of
> prenexing,
Not really, because prenexing continues to apply to quantified sumti.
> 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.
I'll concede that, though I think it is clear that usage is also not
consistent with CLL.
> 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.
Can you give examples? I can't remember what it is you have in mind
here.
> 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.
I guess you mean "skicu fo" (describe x2 to x3 as x4). I myself am not
sure that anything but a ka abstraction would make sense there. Or
rather, I can see how only Kind or only ka could make sense, but not
both, and not anything else. So I'm perplexed at this being the lydian
stone.
As I see XS (which I've now described on the wiki), it is largely
comprised of additions to CLL -- attributions of meaning to forms that
formerly had no meaning. The exception to this is the actual change to
the interpretation of PA in loPA broda. The new interpretation is
undeniably more useful (& the very unusefulness of the former meaning
accounts for why past usage has been so meagre) but also undeniably
at odds with CLL: it is the only part of the proposal that is in
conflict with CLL. Had this element not been crucial to the expressive
capability of XS, I would have removed it, so that it could be said
that there is no conflict at all between XS and CLL.
--And.