Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:25:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710161825.NAA10661@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: quantifiable pro-bridi X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1139 Lines: 30 Mark V: > > > What do you mean by "intension"? > > > > Do you know the word but want to know the sense in which > > I am using it? > > > > Or don't you know it at all? If so, then you're much > > better of going to a book, such as the second Bible of > > Lojban, Jim McCawley's "Everything linguists always wanted > > to know about logic". > > mi spuda la .and. di'e > > I have read & reread that section of McCawley until (& I mean > this literally) the book fell to pieces, & I have made a > strange discovery: I understand what logicians mean by > "intension" only late at night - & not at all on most nights. > > If you or pc or anyone else can shed some light.... I'm being cagey because I think I would be more likely to shed darkness than light. pc's explanation would be more kosher, though his postings often go over my head. I think of the intension of F as a set of criteria for establishing whether F(x). The "definition" of F, as it were. McCawley presents a far more sophisticated account, which I sort of follow until my CPU crashes. McCawley is a reliable source of info. I am not. --And.