From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 10 13:29:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 20:29:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 13832 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 20:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 20:29:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 20:29:24 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.162.13a880f1 (4320) for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:29:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <162.13a880f1.2aafb015@aol.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:29:09 EDT Subject: Fwd: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_alt_boundary" --part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 2:04:13 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > >Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way. > > From my point of view quantification is the key issue here. >> And I still don't see why: if you have a set of things of any sort, then you can quantify over the members of that set. What does the fact that the set contains abstract things have to do with denying this triviality? << >Remember, >in Lojban, all entities are on the same level in the grammar, so it is as >easy to quantify over the members of a set of types or intensions (not >necessarily the same thing, by the way) as of a set of dogs. Yes. That's why {tu'o} is useful to block that ever present quantification when it should not be there. >> But, why should the quantifier not be there? Even if ythe set has only one member, quantification is still meaningful -- indeed, even if the set has no members. It surely is meaningful when the set has an indefinite number of members. << I certainly have no expectation of having a full specification of a type in most cases. And I wouldn't know where to look for the type other than in the meaning of the word. >> I agree that,as a practical matter, we may never know all the details of a type -- at least that we may always discover/decide on new ones not previously noted -- or move to another level of specificity. And I agree that that is intimately connected with meaning, but, if we are to have both notions -- as we probably are -- they are not the same. Meaning, after all, is a property of words. A type relates to tokens, things, and generally not words (of course, every word has several types, but that is just a result of words being things). If you ever tell me what you mean by what you say, we may discover we are not in much disagreement, but, for now, we are pretty clearly not together, though where either of us is is not at all clear to the other, I gather. --part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/10/2002 2:04:13 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

>Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way.

>From my point of view quantification is the key issue here

.
>>
And I still don't see why: if you have a set of things of any sort, then you can quantify over the members of that set. What does the fact that the set contains abstract things have to do with denying this triviality?

<<
>Remember,
>in Lojban, all entities are on the same level in the grammar, so it is as
>easy to quantify over the members of a set of types or intensions (not
>necessarily the same thing, by the way) as of a set of dogs.

Yes. That's why {tu'o} is useful to block that ever present
quantification when it should not be there.
>>
But, why should the quantifier not be there? Even if ythe set has only one member, quantification is still meaningful -- indeed, even if the set has no members. It surely is meaningful when the set has an indefinite number of members.

<<
I certainly have no expectation of having a full specification
of a type in most cases. And I wouldn't know where to look for
the type other than in the meaning of the word.
>>

I agree that,as a practical matter, we may never know all the details of a type -- at least that we may always discover/decide on new ones not previously noted -- or move to another level of specificity. And I agree that that is intimately connected with meaning, but, if we are to have both notions -- as we probably are -- they are not the same. Meaning, after all, is a property of words. A type relates to tokens, things, and generally not words (of course, every word has several types, but that is just a result of words being things).

If you ever tell me what you mean by what you say, we may discover we are not in much disagreement, but, for now, we are pretty clearly not together, though where either of us is is not at all clear to the other, I gather.
--part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_alt_boundary-- --part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa01.mx.aol.com (rly-xa01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.70]) by air-xa02.mail.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILINXA22-0910150413; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:04:13 -0400 Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.79]) by rly-xa01.mx.aol.com (v88.20) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXA15-0910150348; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:03:48 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15502-1031684542-pycyn=aol.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Sep 2002 19:02:23 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 19:02:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 71176 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 19:02:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 19:02:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.152) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 19:02:22 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:02:22 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:02:21 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2002 19:02:22.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[980BFAC0:01C258FC] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:02:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) la pycyn cusku di'e >Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way. >From my point of view quantification is the key issue here. >Remember, >in Lojban, all entities are on the same level in the grammar, so it is as >easy to quantify over the members of a set of types or intensions (not >necessarily the same thing, by the way) as of a set of dogs. Yes. That's why {tu'o} is useful to block that ever present quantification when it should not be there. >One hopes that >the type of a thing is not in the meaning of the word for that thing, >because >that will lead to an infinite regress, circling forever around to get out >the >type, given only tokens. Unless you wan to fall back on the bootstrapping >empirical procedure of science and leave a forever incompletely specified >type -- which makes talk of types pretty senseless against other locutions. I certainly have no expectation of having a full specification of a type in most cases. And I wouldn't know where to look for the type other than in the meaning of the word. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_boundary--