RE: [jboske] Intensions: W

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Nick:
> OK, now I'm finally reading up on intensions, I am becoming very 
> dangerous. :-)
> 
> There is an ambigiuty in the English phrase
> 
> The president of the U.S. will always be a Republican 
> 
> 1. If 'the president' refers to its extension (the guy currently 
> holding the office, W), then this is merely saying that W will always 
> be a Republican. Not a startling claim 
> 
> 2. If 'the president' refers to the intension (whosoever the 
> officeholder shall be at any particular time, as a function mapping 
> time and world to any individual holding the office), that means 
> there will never be a Dem prez 
> 
> You can distinguish between them with tense logic; for H = 'will 
> always be the case',
> 
> 1. Ax: Prez(x) => H(GOP(x))
> 2. H(Ax: Prez(x) => GOP(x))

(1) seems wrong to me. Change to one of:

1a. Ax: Now(Prez(x)) => H(GOP(x))
1b. H(GOP(x)) [presupposed: Ex Prez(x)]

1a and 1b are distinct and equally licit readings.

> You can distinguish between them with intensions; for ^x = the 
> intension of x (the prez in general, as distinct from any individual 
> prez; the function mapping times to individual prez's):
> 
> 1. Prez(x) => GOP(x)
> 2. Prez(^x) => GOP(^x)
> 
> .... So which of the two does
> 
> lo merjatna baroroi prenrnrepubikana
> 
> mean? Both? The latter?

To the extent that Lojban is settled enough for the question to be
answerable, the answer is that it means:

"There is a least one x such that x is merjatna and will always be
a republican"

So it means something closer to (1a) than to (1b) or (2).

To get (2), change to "baroroi ku lo merjatna cu prenrnrepublikana"
= "It will always be the case that there is a merjatna who is a
Republican".

(2) can also be said as "Mr Merjatna will always be a Republican".

> Obviously we can disambiguate sense 1 as {lo nau merjatna}. I presume 
> sense 2 is: {ro da poi temci zo'u: lo merjatna be ca da}? 

More like {ro da poi temci zo'u: *ro* merjatna be ca da}, for nonimporting
ro. You don't (or mightn't) want to be claiming that at every time there 
is an American president.

> Is it also 
> {ro jaika ce'u merjatna} (which is properly {ro jaika ce'u merjatna 
> de'i ce'u}, and indeed {ro jaika ce'u merjatna ma'i ce'u})? Is it {lo 
> ka'e merjatna}?

{jaika} is yucky and should be allowed to fall into oblivion. 
{lo ka'e merjatnu} = "there is at least one x such that x could be
or could have been merjatnu". Not really what is wanted here.

--And.