From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 19 07:19:29 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 19 Feb 2001 15:19:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 75654 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 15:19:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2001 15:19:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 15:19:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.6d.fa096e1 (4236) for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:18:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <6d.fa096e1.27c29359@aol.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:18:49 EST Subject: RE: Orcutt (again?!) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6d.fa096e1.27c29359_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 5525 --part1_6d.fa096e1.27c29359_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't find the file of Orcutt stuff from the last time(s?) and I am not sure it is relevant to this go-'round, which seem to be more complicated than I can see the need for at the moment. So... I know that a certain person is named Orcutt, John met a man yesterday and now believes that man is a spy. Having observed the meeting, I know that the man he met is the one I know as Orcutt, but John does not know this. I can say Of Orcutt, John believes that he is a spy la orkyt zo'u la djan krici le du'u ke [spy] and also John believes that the man he met yesterday is a spy la djan krici le du'u le nanmu poi he met him yesterday is a spy but not John believes that Orcutt is a spy la djan krici le du'u la orkyt [spy] I do not see the point of all the runs through {ckaji} and the like, though I suspect that I caused it all by something I said about individual concepts. The point of that is just that in intensional contexts, the reference (denotation) of a name is its normal sense (designation), so that, in particular, identity replacements do not work with normal coreferents but only with normal cosenses. Clearly the coreference of "Orcutt" and "the man John met yesterday" does not carry also cosense, so that replacement will not hold in the intensional context of {krici}, though some other description of the man which was logically equivalent to "the man who John met yesterday" would (on the usual run through). I don't see the connection of any of this to the issue about Maggie Thatcher and George Eliot. The differences there are just about the authority or sanity or whatever of the believer, not a problem about intensional contexts. At the most, you might make a case that the names could not be exported to the "as for" format, since the person may not be talking about people he thinks are real or he might hold his view even after a close physical examination (including chromosome check) of the actual person: la magis fatcr zo'u la djan na krici le du'u ko'e du la magis fatcr. --part1_6d.fa096e1.27c29359_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I can't find the file of Orcutt stuff from the last time(s?) and I am not
sure it is relevant to this go-'round, which seem to be more complicated
than I can see the need for at the moment. So...
I know that a certain person is named Orcutt, John met a man yesterday and
now believes that man is a spy. Having observed the meeting, I know that the
man he met is the one I know as Orcutt, but John does not know this. I can
say
            Of Orcutt, John believes that he is a spy
      la orkyt zo'u la djan krici le du'u ke [spy]
and also
            John believes that the man he met yesterday is a spy
      la djan krici le du'u le nanmu poi he met him yesterday is a spy
but not
            John believes that Orcutt is a spy
      la djan krici le du'u la orkyt [spy]
I do not see the point of all the runs through {ckaji} and the like, though I
suspect that I caused it all by something I said about individual concepts.
The point of that is just that in intensional contexts, the reference
(denotation) of a name is its normal sense (designation), so that, in
particular, identity replacements do not work with normal coreferents but
only with normal cosenses. Clearly the coreference of "Orcutt" and "the man
John met yesterday" does not carry also cosense, so that replacement will not
hold in the intensional context of {krici}, though some other description of
the man which was logically equivalent to "the man who John met yesterday"
would (on the usual run through).
I don't see the connection of any of this to the issue about Maggie Thatcher
and George Eliot. The differences there are just about the authority or
sanity or whatever of the believer, not a problem about intensional contexts.
At the most, you might make a case that the names could not be exported to
the "as for" format, since the person may not be talking about people he
thinks are real or he might hold his view even after a close physical
examination (including chromosome check) of the actual person: la magis fatcr
zo'u la djan na krici le du'u ko'e du la magis fatcr. --part1_6d.fa096e1.27c29359_boundary--