From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Jul 16 13:26:20 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G2DBh-0007nC-QA for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:26:01 -0700 Received: from web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.40]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G2DBg-0007mw-TI for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:26:01 -0700 Received: (qmail 80529 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Jul 2006 20:25:57 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=TAwqwXjcwpDzD4uB8wFiVNoj8MEH39FA41/h/OVoZsepe6y4IYfTNhPrsClxYPIWMk7Z2K6Rd/GBbUROqZujmV6wMPiMxiLAFAnE7AQzcvhGNNJWJyCVMAHon0NuEt7icx+7FU/J5KmG79bK+pgq8i0lc5q2BRh0W9I9+HOPhxA= ; Message-ID: <20060716202557.80527.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.206.86] by web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:25:57 PDT Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:25:57 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560607141556o7378040aie19867e9bc5b2a32@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-archive-position: 12224 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > On 7/14/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > (I was trying to keep this as uncomplicated as possible -- but when you > > simplify one place it always makes a probelm sowhere else). > > If the goal of the exercise is to demonstrate the equivalence of the > singularist and the pluralist models, wouldn't a simpler language, > without variables, quantifiers, determiners and connectives do > just as well? i.e. doesn't a language whose only terms are names > already contain all the interesting ingredients for that purpose? Probably, but the usual examples all seem to involve descriptors and the ultimate question here is about "all." I am setting up for later developments. > Second question: wouldn't a model without mediating concepts > (for either the singularist or the pluralist) be also equivalent to the > models with concepts? i.e. a model where the interpretation is a > function from terms to masses or C relates terms to masses, and > predicates are interpreted as functions from terms into {0,1}? Do > concepts contribute anything in this simple language? Not quite equivalent in the pluralist case. So far as I can see at the moment, concepts (or something like) are needed to make that model work (McKay simply uses sets without mentioning them and burying the whole under a lot of antiset rhetoric, I am trying to avoid that and be a bit more openabout what is going on). Without concepts it is hard to see how to differentiate distributive from non-distributive predication in the pluralsit case. The singularist model doesn't need concepts but Maxim is so set on an intermediary mentalism that I figured it wouldn't hurt and might help. It doesn't. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.