Return-Path: Message-Id: From: eric (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: Re: xebro To: cbmvax!uunet!think.com!gls (Guy Steele) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 18:44:16 EDT Cc: lojban-list In-Reply-To: <9106141659.AA26529@strident.think.com>; from "Guy Steele" at Jun 14, 91 12:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jun 14 18:44:52 1991 X-From-Space-Address: eric Your characterization of equality as a semi-predicate argues more strongly for a linguistic divorce between `formal identity' (which is an exact, "computable" predicate in your terms) and the approximate `material' equality in language (which is not). > But I begin to think that equality figures so centrally in language > because the most important function of language is to be predictive > and imperative rather than descriptive; descriptive power is important > only in the service of other purposes. In other words, language is > concerned with the future rather than the past; it is about predicting > what will happen and causing things to happen. I agree with this. In fact, I can ground it more formally than you have; you are asserting that language is not an empiricist construct but an operationalist one, in the full technical meaning of those terms. You are close to what I understand of Heidegger's concept of `zuhandinen', this idea of language and thought as a kit of tools which one is constantly in the process of rearranging. > Now talk of the > future is necessarily approximate and speculative, so it's okay > to use "is", which has the same properties, in that kind of framework > for most purposes. In fact, I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. If talk of the future is necessary speculative, semantic hygiene is *more* important, not less --- it is *more* important that `predictive' equality be marked as a semi-predicate, a slippery thing. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)