[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> CLL-lo is extensional, because of its assumed {su'o}. I refuse to be
> barred from glorking {su'o} before {lo}. I will allow you to also glork
> {tu'o}. That is as much as I will concede. Because we're obviously
> getting tangled in terminology, by unquantified I only mean "absent an
> overt quantifier"; I am admitting that {lo} without an overt quantifier
> may not even have an implicit one, but I will not admit that it must
> not.
su'o lo broda = su'o broda, so "extensional" lo is redundant, and so
glorking su'o before lo is uncooperative. Which is as it should be; su'o
matches the tone of extensional logickery, whereas gadri have a more
article-like, naturalistic flavor.
> >> 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.
>
> Usage doesn't know the time of day, though. Seriously.
Rather than point out that you cite usage a mere 5 lines before this, I'll
instead congratulate your epiphany as to the corpus' quality.
> >> 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.
>
> I'm looking for a particular Unicorn. Not LAhE3 at all: this Unicorn is
> not the Any Unicorn. But still manifestly intensional, or at the very
> least not in the external prenex. I eat the same fish and chips as you:
> certainly Mr Fish and Chips is involved, but I'm having a hard time
> crediting this is really intension as we know it. I think Intension and
> Mr are orthogonal, and John, in sabotaging your intent to have "All
> Kinds exist, whether their referents do or not", is who has pushed me to
> think so. John is being Extensionalist, and that, I think, is what I'm
> defending.
Like God, John's approval is claimed on every side of the controversy.
Mister ~= Nonspecific ~= Any ~= Intension. I've written some criticisms on
this topic which have gone unaddressed, and until they are refuted, I'm
taking these 4 as functionally equivalent.
> I see we're having pc join in now too, though through wiki rather than
> here. So we'll have even more chaos and dissension. Peachy.
There's a man who's had 40 years to give us a solid gadri solution.
--
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...