From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 11 13:35:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 11 Aug 2002 20:35:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 48458 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2002 20:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Aug 2002 20:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2002 20:35:30 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v33.5.) id r.62.240131af (4402) for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <62.240131af.2a882489@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35:21 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_62.240131af.2a882489_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: 15000 --part1_62.240131af.2a882489_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/11/2002 1:52:35 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes: << > but I > wonder whether the crux of the disagreement between you is > what it means to say "there is a" - as in "There is a coat that > I wear the blanket as". Jorge says that's not what "I wear > the blanket as a coat" means, and you say it is. >> I hope I never said that I thought that I thought that that was what the sentence meant and that I did say that there was no obvious reason -- other than gut feeling -- to reject it. I didn't say (I hope) also that I thought {dasni} had an intensional place, only that that would solve xorxes problem with the first solution (it didn't, but for unexprected -- an largely obscure reasons). << If we evaluate the claim over the universe of actual things, then Jorge is right. If we evaluate it over the universe of actual and imaginary things, then pc is right. >> xorxes would find the second reading, with the quantifiers over possible coats, equally objectionable (or he should, if I understand his argument). And more so, since apparently you can only quantify over what there is in this *world. << Allegedly, the distinction is disambiguated by "lo ka'e kosta" v. "lo ca'a kosta" or "lo pu'i kosta" (I don't know what the difference between those two is), but I doubt that usage bears that out, since usage tends to reflect the ma'oste glosses of 'capability', and not the rather different notion of selection of universes of individuals. >> Yeah, we are short on logical (etc.) possibilities but long on Aristotelian potentials ({ca'a} apparently means it's at it now, {pu'i} that it has done it, so proven its potential [{ka'a} leaves some room for doubt -- or this is about various level of "can"] even thoigh it is not at it at the moment.) --part1_62.240131af.2a882489_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/11/2002 1:52:35 PM Central Daylight Time, a-rosta@alphaphe.com writes:

<<

but I
wonder whether the crux of the disagreement between you is
what it means to say "there is a" - as in "There is a coat that
I wear the blanket as". Jorge says that's not what "I wear
the blanket as a coat" means, and you say it is.

>>
I hope I never said that I thought that I thought that that was what the sentence meant and that I did say that there was no obvious reason -- other than gut feeling -- to reject it. I didn't say (I hope) also that I thought {dasni} had an intensional place, only that that would solve xorxes problem with the first solution (it didn't, but for unexprected -- an largely obscure reasons).

<<
If we evaluate
the claim over the universe of actual things, then Jorge is
right. If we evaluate it over the universe of actual and
imaginary things, then pc is right.
>>
xorxes would find the second reading, with the quantifiers over possible coats, equally objectionable (or he should, if I understand his argument). And more so, since apparently you can only quantify over what there is in this *world.

<<
Allegedly, the distinction is disambiguated by "lo ka'e kosta"
v. "lo ca'a kosta" or "lo pu'i kosta" (I don't know what the
difference between those two is), but I doubt that usage bears
that out, since usage tends to reflect the ma'oste glosses of
'capability', and not the rather different notion of selection
of universes of individuals.
>>
Yeah, we are short on logical (etc.) possibilities but long on Aristotelian potentials ({ca'a} apparently means it's at it now, {pu'i} that it has done it, so proven its potential [{ka'a} leaves some room for doubt -- or this is about various level of "can"] even thoigh it is not at it at the moment.)
--part1_62.240131af.2a882489_boundary--