From cowan Mon Nov 27 10:18:46 1995 Subject: Re: logical issues (lambda,ka, man-dogs, etc.) From: John Cowan To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:18:46 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511221710.MAA09365@locke.ccil.org> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 22, 95 11:58:41 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1468 Status: OR Message-ID: mi joi la xorxes. cusku be di'e casnu > > Poof. In fact, "mi se cmene zo xorxes" became true only when you joined > > the Lojban community. > > So {la xorxes pu jbena fi li pasoxaxa} is false? No, because "la xorxes." refers (as of now) to you during all periods of your life. If I changed my name to Fred Muggs, it would be correct to say "Fred Muggs was born in 1958", but it would still be true that I wasn't called Fred Muggs until 1995. > > All claims are about stages; some stages may last > > as long as the individual does. To think otherwise is a residue of > > essentialism. > > Well, if you say {le gerku cu klama le zarci} and later {le gerku cu zvati > le zarci}, are the referents of {le gerku} the same in both sentences? > They are obviously different stages, so if they are the same something, > that something is not the stages mentioned in each sentence. > > Read again your sentence: "All claims are about stages; some stages may last > as long as the individual does." What do you mean by "the individual"? > Aren't you making a claim about it? Yes. However, I don't reify stages necessarily. A claim about my toe is a claim about me. > I give up on arguing that "all" need not have existential import, since > any claim I make about English will be suspect. I do claim that "todos" > need not have existential import, and I don't see why {ro} should have. Hear, hear. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.