From sentto-44114-15011-1029034087-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Aug 10 19:48:41 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.87]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17dimV-0001OI-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:48:39 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-15011-1029034087-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.201] by n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Aug 2002 02:48:09 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 11 Aug 2002 02:48:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 66809 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2002 02:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Aug 2002 02:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2002 02:48:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.18.2390ae80 (4012) for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <18.2390ae80.2a872a5f@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:47:59 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18.2390ae80.2a872a5f_boundary" X-archive-position: 541 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_18.2390ae80.2a872a5f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/10/2002 11:47:37 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > Let me try to clarify how I see this inensional/extensional > issue so you can correct me where I got it wrong. >> Great, but I don't think you can be wrong here; the notions are too fluid, beyond a bare minimum (failure of Leibniz and particular quantification -- oh, and fronting) << We are dealing with this English sentence: E1) He wears the blanket as a coat. And these two Lojban sentences: L1) ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta L2) ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta >> Well, several more Lojban cases have been suggested and I have almost no idea what L2 means when you say it, but OK, lets get these sorted out at least. << Now, first about E1. According to my understanding, the intensional reading is the standard one for that sentence. I can force an extensional reading if I try hard, but it is certainly not how I would normally understand it. The normal reading of E1 cannot be put into logical form as: there is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket as x. The normal interpretation would be something like "he wears the blanket as if the blanket was a coat", thus providing a clear intensional context for "a coat". Do we agree so far, or would you say that the extensional reading of E1 is more prevalent? >> I am not at all sure which is the more common and how much of what makes you think the intensional one is due to misunderstanding of what "a coat" means or to the influence of the standard Spanish expression. I try to avoid intensions wherever possible, and this seems to me not to force an intensional reading under normal conditions, but I can bear to have it be intensional if you like. << Now for the Lojban. Lojban does not allow the intensional/extensional ambiguity to arise. L1 only has the extensional reading (the one that I hold E1 hardly ever would have). This is because any {lo} term, as well as any {le} term, are always extensional in the bridi in which they appear. There is no possible intensional reading of L1. Quantifiers are intrinsically extensional. >> I'm not quite sure what the last bit means, but I'll agree that quantifiers outside intensional contexts refer to existing things, whereas those inside intensional context need not (just as any sumti in there need not -- nor indeed and selbri either). Lojban does try -- not always successfully, alas -- to avoid int/ext ambiguity; it doesn't "allow" them but they keep popping up anyhow (some words just don't listen to rules, though their creators could have avoided the problem by defining them differently. But the damage is not set in concrete until long after Hell is a skating rink). I take it that L1 points up a case of that sort: the third place of {dasni} is not marked (however that would be done) as intensional and yet taking it as extensional leads to what appears to some people to be wrong results. It has a perfectly good intensional reading (and extensional one, too, for that matter -- but we disagree abbout that). Apparently, you find even the intensional reading of L1 objectionable, though none of the objections I have heard (except your gut feeling -- which is often a rather good indicator, but usually backed up with a bit more rationale than this time) applies to it. The claim that {le} and {lo} are always extensional in the bridi in which they appear (though we cannot even agree on which bridi they appear in, last time I checked -- I'm assuming you mean "appear in most immediately" or some such thing) seems a little muddled, since, if that bridi is a {le du'u} clause, for example, which sets up an intensional context, then I don't quite know for sure what you mean. I suppose you are saying that, within the sentence between {du'u} and {kei} all the ordinary extensional rules hold. But that is notoriously not the case: a person can believe an identity to hold and one member of the identity to have a property and yet deny that the other member has that property. He is, of course, a little slow or irrational, but he can do it -- and often does. And similarly for the other rules of extensionality. So, if the third place of {dasni} is intensional, then {lo} or {le} there will not be extensional in that place, though they are in that bridi. << What about L2? L2 does not deal extensionally with the set of coats, so at least in that respect it is a better translation of the normal sense of E1. >> L1 doesn't deal with the set of coats either, just with a coat (though it might be all of them -- but certainly not the set of them). As for the rest, I have to take your word, since you have yet to explain just what the Hell {lo'e kosta} refers to. Apparently, whatever it is, it is dealt with extensionally, accepting your rule from L1 that the place cannot be intensional. So, there is some particular thing which ko'a is wearing the blanket as. But, as far as I can tell, lo'e kosta is not something wearable at all, so wearing something as it would be what? But, of course, the definition doesn't say "wears as" but "wears as a garment of type" and so {lo'e kosta} is the name of a type. [Note the "a garment" means that even if the type is taken care of, there is still something that he is wearing the blanket as.] As noted, Lojban has done nothing or very little very poorly to deal with types, so what that line means here is unclear. But real types are generally transcendental, which is at least not extensional in the quantifier sense and arguably not in any of the others either. So we are probably back to some intensional interpretation of that place, now marked -- assuming {lo'e} marks something intensional (but what exactly?) << {dasni} could have been defined in other ways. For example: x1 wears x2 as if it were a member of set x3 or: x1 wears x2 as if it had property x3 If one of those was the definition of dasni, then the proper way of translating E1 would be respectively: L3) ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'i kosta L4) ko'a dasni le boxfo le ka ce'u kosta and those would also be fine because neither of them deals with the set of coats extensionally, only intensionally. But that is not how dasni is defined, so L2 remains the best translation I can think of, using the gi'uste definition of {dasni}. >> It could have -- and perhaps should have -- but, as you note, it wasn't and so neither of these works (and didn't we get rid of {ka} a while back?) [though again, I can't resist to note that a garment that is a member of thes et of coats or has the property of being a coat, is a coat, so I am not sure how we have exactly gotten away from your original problem]. Using the gi'uste definition of {dasni} but not the ma'oste definition of {lo'e} is as obscure as going the other way round. It doesn't work, since the critters weren't defined that way. I don't think he wears it like the typical coat -- and not merely because you can't wear a typical coat -- nor is a typical coat a type. So, barring an explanation of what you mean by {lo'e broda}, L2 is worse than L1, since it is at best false and most likely meaningless. --part1_18.2390ae80.2a872a5f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/10/2002 11:47:37 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
Let me try to clarify how I see this inensional/extensional
issue so you can correct me where I got it wrong.

>>
Great, but I don't think you can be wrong here; the notions are too fluid, beyond a bare minimum (failure of Leibniz and particular quantification -- oh, and fronting)

<<
We are dealing with this English sentence:

E1)  He wears the blanket as a coat.

And these two Lojban sentences:

L1)  ko'a dasni le boxfo lo kosta
L2)  ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'e kosta
>>

Well, several more Lojban cases have been suggested and I have almost no idea what L2 means when you say it, but OK, lets get these sorted out at least.

<<
Now, first about E1. According to my understanding, the
intensional reading is the standard one for that sentence.
I can force an extensional reading if I try hard, but it
is certainly not how I would normally understand it. The
normal reading of E1 cannot be put into logical form
as: there is some coat x, such that he wears the blanket
as x. The normal interpretation would be something like
"he wears the blanket as if the blanket was a coat", thus
providing a clear intensional context for "a coat".
Do we agree so far, or would you say that the extensional
reading of E1 is more prevalent?
>>
I am not at all sure which is the more common and how much of what makes you think the intensional one is due to misunderstanding of what "a coat" means or to the influence of the standard Spanish expression.  I try to avoid intensions wherever possible, and this seems to me not to force an intensional reading under normal conditions, but I can bear to have it be intensional if you like.

<<
Now for the Lojban. Lojban does not allow the
intensional/extensional ambiguity to arise. L1 only has
the extensional reading (the one that I hold E1 hardly
ever would have). This is because any {lo} term, as well
as any {le} term, are always extensional in the bridi in
which they appear. There is no possible intensional
reading of L1. Quantifiers are intrinsically extensional.
>>

I'm not quite sure what the last bit means, but I'll agree that quantifiers outside intensional contexts refer to existing things, whereas those inside intensional context need not (just as any sumti in there need not -- nor indeed and selbri either).

Lojban does try -- not always successfully, alas -- to avoid int/ext ambiguity; it doesn't "allow" them but they keep popping up anyhow (some words just don't listen to rules, though their creators could have avoided the problem by defining them differently.  But the damage is not set in concrete until long after Hell is a skating rink).  I take it that L1 points up a case of that sort: the third place of {dasni} is not marked (however that would be done) as intensional and yet taking it as extensional leads to what appears to some people to be wrong results. It has a perfectly good intensional reading (and extensional one, too, for that matter -- but we disagree abbout that).  Apparently, you find even the intensional reading of L1 objectionable, though none of the objections I have heard (except your gut feeling -- which is often a rather good indicator, but usually backed up with a bit more rationale than this time) applies to it. 
The claim that {le} and {lo} are always extensional in the bridi in which they appear (though we cannot even agree on which bridi they appear in, last time I checked -- I'm assuming you mean "appear in most immediately" or some such thing) seems a little muddled, since, if that bridi is a {le du'u} clause, for example,  which sets up an intensional context, then I don't quite know for sure what you mean.  I suppose you are saying that, within the sentence between {du'u} and {kei} all the ordinary extensional rules hold.  But that is notoriously not the case: a person can believe an identity to hold and one member of the identity to have a property and yet deny that the other member has that property.  He is, of course, a little slow or irrational, but he can do it -- and often does. And similarly for the other rules of extensionality.  So, if the third place of {dasni} is intensional, then {lo} or {le} there will not be extensional in that place, though they are in that bridi.

<<
What about L2? L2 does not deal extensionally with the
set of coats, so at least in that respect it is a better
translation of the normal sense of E1.
>>

L1 doesn't deal with the set of coats either, just with a coat (though it might be all of them -- but certainly not the set of them).  As for the rest, I have to take your word, since you have yet to explain just what the Hell {lo'e kosta} refers to.  Apparently, whatever it is, it is dealt with extensionally, accepting your rule from L1 that the place cannot be intensional.  So, there is some particular thing which ko'a is wearing the blanket as.  But, as far as I can tell, lo'e kosta is not something wearable at all, so wearing something as it would be what?   
But, of course, the definition doesn't say "wears as" but "wears as a garment of type" and so {lo'e kosta} is the name of a type. [Note the "a garment" means that even if the type is taken care of, there is still something that he is wearing the blanket as.]
As noted, Lojban has done nothing or very little very poorly to deal with types, so what that line means here is unclear.  But real types are generally transcendental, which is at least not extensional in the quantifier sense and arguably not in any of the others either.  So we are probably back to some intensional interpretation of that place, now marked -- assuming {lo'e} marks something intensional (but what exactly?)

<<
{dasni} could have been defined in other ways. For example:

      x1 wears x2 as if it were a member of set x3

or:

      x1 wears x2 as if it had property x3

If one of those was the definition of dasni, then the proper
way of translating E1 would be respectively:

L3)  ko'a dasni le boxfo lo'i kosta
L4)  ko'a dasni le boxfo le ka ce'u kosta

and those would also be fine because neither of them deals
with the set of coats extensionally, only intensionally.
But that is not how dasni is defined, so L2 remains the
best translation I can think of, using the gi'uste definition
of {dasni}.
>>

It could have -- and perhaps should have -- but, as you note, it wasn't and so neither of these works (and didn't we get rid of {ka} a while back?) [though again, I can't resist to note that a garment that is a member of thes et of coats or has the property of being a coat, is a coat, so I am not sure how we have exactly gotten away from your original problem].

Using the gi'uste definition of {dasni} but not the ma'oste definition of {lo'e} is as obscure as going the other way round.  It doesn't work, since the critters weren't defined that way.  I don't think he wears it like the typical coat -- and not merely because you can't wear a typical coat -- nor is a typical coat a type.  So, barring an explanation of what you mean by {lo'e broda}, L2 is worse than L1, since it is at best false and most likely meaningless.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here for more selections... Click here to visit LensExpress.com Avucue2 Colours ACUVUE Disposables FreshLook Colorblends Disposables Focus Night & Day Continous Wear Get Wild... with Wild Eyes!
Click here to find your contact lenses!

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_18.2390ae80.2a872a5f_boundary--