From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 13 07:41:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 13 Aug 2002 14:41:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 26667 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 14:41:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2002 14:41:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 14:41:29 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.1ba.4bb1441 (4584) for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1ba.4bb1441.2a8a7493@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:41:23 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1ba.4bb1441.2a8a7493_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 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 15035 --part1_1ba.4bb1441.2a8a7493_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2002 9:14:48 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > When I look at {tu'a lo dinko} I see {le du'u lo dinko cu co'e}. > Maybe I am overly structured, but I can't see this as nails in > intension, I keep seeing it as a proposition about nails. >> That - and other abstracts like events and properties -- is a large part of what "nails in intension" means. "Argument," remember is a suface syntactic term, not a semantic one. << Part of the problem is that you and I are speaking different languages. You start from the premise that places can be extensional or intensional >> So, not different langauges but different assumptions in the language. I think that all places ought to be extensional, but that we screw up occasionally. << To me all places are neutral in this regard. It is only the way of referring to the members of a set that can be extensional or intensional. Quantified descriptors (lo/le) are extensional, and non-quantified descriptors (lo'e) are intensional. Neither {le ka ce'u broda} nor {le du'u lo broda cu co'e} is for me a reference to the members of lo'i broda, rather they refer to properties/propositions. >> But you can't have it both ways, {le du'u ce'u broda} is a quantified descriptor but is intensional. And it is, of course a reference to mebers of lo'i du'u ce'u broda. What (God help us all) would {lo'e du'u ce'u broda} be like? << That [as a kind of disjoint tanru]'s not a bad way of looking at it! {broda lo'e brode} can be thought of as {brode broda zi'o}, except that the tanru relationship is much more precise in the first case. >> And how will all this expand when we try to explain the tanru; what comes after {ta'unai}? That is, what precisely is the tanru relation involved? We have gotten a long way from archetypes or intensions or anything else of where we started here. Is there a binding thread, an intuition that you are trying to formalize? If so, what is it? --part1_1ba.4bb1441.2a8a7493_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/13/2002 9:14:48 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<

When I look at {tu'a lo dinko} I see {le du'u lo dinko cu co'e}.
Maybe I am overly structured, but I can't see this as nails in
intension, I keep seeing it as a proposition about nails.

>>
That - and other abstracts like events and properties -- is a large part of what "nails in intension" means. "Argument," remember is a suface syntactic term, not a semantic one.

<<
Part of the problem is that you and I are speaking different
languages. You start from the premise that places can be
extensional or intensional
>>
So, not different langauges but different assumptions in the language. I think that all places ought to be extensional, but that we screw up occasionally.

<<
To me all places are neutral in
this regard. It is only the way of referring to the members
of a set that can be extensional or intensional. Quantified
descriptors (lo/le) are extensional, and non-quantified
descriptors (lo'e) are intensional. Neither {le ka ce'u broda}
nor {le du'u lo broda cu co'e} is for me a reference to the
members of lo'i broda, rather they refer to
properties/propositions.
>>
But you can't have it both ways, {le du'u ce'u broda} is a quantified descriptor but is intensional. And it is, of course a reference to mebers of lo'i du'u ce'u broda. What (God help us all) would {lo'e du'u ce'u broda} be like?

<<
That [as a kind of disjoint tanru]'s not a bad way of looking at it! {broda lo'e brode} can be thought of as {brode broda zi'o}, except that the tanru
relationship is much more precise in the first case.
>>
And how will all this expand when we try to explain the tanru; what comes after {ta'unai}? That is, what precisely is the tanru relation involved?
We have gotten a long way from archetypes or intensions or anything else of where we started here. Is there a binding thread, an intuition that you are trying to formalize? If so, what is it? --part1_1ba.4bb1441.2a8a7493_boundary--