Return-Path: Message-Id: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 02:02 EDT From: lojbab (Bob LeChevalier) To: lojban-list Subject: Guy Steele on names as predicates Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jun 13 02:02:30 1991 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab Guy is absolutely correct in that any name can be in many ways predicate-y. In essence, all words are just names for concepts. The difference in grammar between names and diescriptions is minimal - indeed you can even say "la mlatu" - the one named cat. However the morphology of names, and their inherent incapbility of being compounded grammatically, also makes their syntax simpler. You don;t need the "cu" after "la mlat." before a selbri, you do after "la mlatu". But the real point of names as opposed to other words is that names are more overtly symbols than other words. We don;t ascribe any real semantics to "Mick Jagger" - it just labels an individual. On the other hand, we try to "keep up with the Joneses", and there are no individuals that we have in mind when we use that idiom. Most of the time, though, names are a conventional label for one or more individuals, and there is nothing about that name that makes it especially apprpriate or inappropriate, except in the mind of the namer. (Remember that "cmene" has a place in it for the name-giver or name-user. "smuni" does not - it is presumed that we are not Humpty Dumpty's such that you need to know who is using the word to know what it means. With many names there is no clear referent. Since there is at least one other Lojbanist named Guy, who will probably be at LogFest, areference to "Guy" at Logfest will probably not be the one who poste this comment.) lojbab