From: cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc
Message-Id: <9106122100.AA00179@euphemia.math.ucla.edu>
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: Re: xebro 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jun 91 18:29:52 EDT."
             <9106112229.AA09543@strident.think.com> 
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 14:00:19 +0100
Status: RO

> Completely aside from the theological content of this discussion, you
> have hit on a point that has bugged me about Loglan for twenty
> years: I am not entirely convinced that distinguishing names and
> predicates is such a good idea after all.  Is not a name merely a
> predicate that you are pretty sure happens to be satisfied by a
> single thing (whatever a "thing" is)?  

I agree.  One of my various Old Loglan proposals was for a "name tense"
which would turn a selbri (e.g. solji djacu) into a name (Goldwater).
Foreign names like .djan. would be interpreted as funny predicates 
scarcely recognizable morphologically, and "la" would be like "le"
except it has an implied "name tense".  It went over like a lead balloon.
But I continue to believe that when you use a word as a name, you
disconnect its usual meaning and turn it into a special kind of predicate
with special semantics.  

> Luciano-Pavarotti can Enrico-Caruso better than anyone else alive today.

Unfortunately you end up saying "Luciano Pavarotti IS Enrico Caruso"
under a strict predicate interpretation.  

		-- jimc