Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0ri4cK-00001pC; Fri, 24 Feb 95 20:19 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8179; Fri, 24 Feb 95 20:20:09 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8178; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:20:09 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8600; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 19:16:15 +0100 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 13:18:22 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Carterian formula (was: Gricean formula?) X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199502240704.AA12654@nfs1.digex.net> from "Chris Bogart" at Feb 23, 95 05:19:38 pm Content-Length: 1652 Lines: 32 > I don't understand why you think it's useful to neglect animals with a heart > .onai a kidney. My point is that such an animal is only marginally an animal: it tends to be dead, or on total life support. But the fact that {x | x has a heart} and {x | x has a kidney} are the same set, does not mean that having a heart and having a kidney should be reckoned identical properties. Quine uses this example to discredit the idea of properties, but I don't think that will work for natural-language use, where we think in terms of objects and their properties. > Can you come up with a "minimal pair" of sentences that > might exist in a language, differing only in their use of predicates meaning > "x1 has a heart" and "x1 has kidneys", *without* relying on dissection, > organ transplants, unusual species, etc? How about a pair of sentences > using two predicates whose referent sets are guaranteed to be the same? > (i.e. "x1 has skin", "x1 has a skin color") Sure, and so can you, but I'm not sure what point you're making. The point is that such pairs of sentences have the same truth conditions, but they don't mean the same thing, in any usual sense of "mean". > Agreed. But what *does* "lo ratcu" mean in Lojban, all by itself? It's an incomplete utterance, so it is either used to complete a previous utterance (typically, but not necessarily, a question), or it tends to provoke a completion (possibly a question) itself. Thus, if you come up to me and say "lo ratcu" I will probably respond "lo ratcu cu ?mo". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.