Received: from mail-iy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.210.189]:46439) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RTb5D-0004N1-0e; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:31 -0800 Received: by iage36 with SMTP id e36sf5647101iag.16 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4wHXTxlW2PZ25iidPr2UB7GNwgX2URfKCVphtRMG62s=; b=LlQYoksFmoxLk8RXdqVQaTEr3CYAS6QegLM4CmsfFKlKu6+e/cYsP5b2HNnPPsby6P mJB940qG2J1ul8oOJA3SGF8VyxghsTpSv6SxkGWF0rtMvNAa7JsB5/8+suDDl+NueHiO KpGJGUI6g6/7/kD7zjUz3vA/Dk4bNp80gXKNI= Received: by 10.68.39.74 with SMTP id n10mr733843pbk.8.1322147958242; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:18 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.121.5 with SMTP id lg5ls1002458pbb.5.gmail; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.39.100 with SMTP id o4mr8400494pbk.0.1322147957667; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.39.100 with SMTP id o4mr8400493pbk.0.1322147957660; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pz0-f49.google.com (mail-pz0-f49.google.com [209.85.210.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u7si1283918pbn.2.2011.11.24.07.19.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.49; Received: by mail-pz0-f49.google.com with SMTP id 6so619021pzk.8 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.4.38 with SMTP id h6mr18494256pbh.5.1322147957498; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.224.8 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1322145121.36250.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1322084099.71575.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1322145121.36250.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:19:17 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] No title, since the subject will have changed by the time it gets there From: maikxlx To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=maikxlx@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:32 AM, John E Clifford wro= te: > Well, sorta. =A0A maximal bunch is a bunch (L-set, plurality) in a single= domain > of discourse that contains all the relevant objects (the current ones alm= ost > always, the past ones often. the possible ones occasionally -- probably o= nly the > possible ones from proximal worlds). > It's not clear to me how that would work or how you'd want it to work, and I doubt the issue could be sorted by marking distinctions using the gadri.* You do want to refer to a bunch, which I think is roughly equivalent to an extension, both to obtain a generic reading at a given world-time index when desired and to allow quantification when desired. However, you do not want to mix extensions across possible worlds willy-nilly. Intensions, which do span possible worlds, do so in a well-defined way, and they have totally different properties than do extensions. Intensions "contain" the extension (possibly empty) of some thing-a-ma-jig at every possible state of affairs. In other words, intensions are functions that say, "give me a possible world and time, and I'll give you exactly the extension that you're looking for." This is the closest thing to a mathematical formalization of "meaning" that I have yet encountered. Extensions are myopic entities that unable to interact with anything outside their own state of affairs, and they have no way of determining the intensions they are related to or are derived from. We notice this when we notice that there are many possible states of affairs in which the extensions of {se risna be da} and {se livga be da} are identical. If all you have is a bunch (i.e. L-set or C-set of entit(y/ies) in a given state of affairs), how would you know which intension they came from? However, by going to the intension, by expanding the domain to include possible worlds in which {se risna be da} and {se livga be da} are not identical, then we are able see _precisely_ what the "meanings" of these two phrases really are. Thus typically I conceptualize a domain of discourse as naturally containing not just one, but virtually _countless_ possible worlds when an intension is invoked, and I see an intension invoked whenever xorlo is used. Largely, this is not a problem. As I indicated, I doubt that we need to distinguish intensions from extensions on the gadri because, again, in most cases* as soon as you specify or glork the world and time your working with, the intension will automatically give you the extension you need. Most of the time, context will give you the world and time, but you can also be explicit. If you apply {ca'a}, then you shift into the actual world and get a set of actual {nanmu}. When you posit a fictional and counterfactual state of affairs, you posit exactly a world with the characteristics that you have given it. If there is any lack of clarity in all of this, it's due to the "headlinese" style of prose that Lojban licenses. Ultimately, distinguishing intensions from extensions is the responsibility of the aspectual and modal system in Lojban, not to the gadri. *Except for possibly two cases: specificity, which I suspect is already covered by {lo / le}; and true kinds (i.e. what I would somewhat tentatively and arcanely call "non-generic idealizations of intensions"), which arguably should be marked insofar as they do disallow any existential reading. In the latter case, we seem to be dealing with the intension per se rather than as a function back to extensions. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.