Monty's unicorns

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

I've just got to the bit where Dowty explains how Montague does de 
dicto in seeking unicorns.

Properties of properties? Using the individual sublimation = haeccity 
to distinguish intensional from extensional verbs? Lojban can never do 
this. I'd much rather Quine. Even if Quine doesn't work.

I'm going to try to sully Monty by inserting lambdas for worlds and 
times and killing the intensions, and putting in Lojbans numeric 
quantifiers rather than the pure sets of properties, and see if I can 
get anything intelligible out of it.

But before I go on, who here is familiar with Monty's scheme?

I gotta say, this has been disspiriting. Intensions made the Quinean 
embedded quantifications looks so square, and were so much more 
flexible. But I cannot use properties of properties and existential and 
individual sublimations; they may work with the utmost of serendipity 
for Monty's mapping from English to Lambda calculus, but they twist 
your head right off...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
^^
Dr Nick Nicholas. French/Italian, "Rode like foam on the river of pity
University of Melbourne Turned its tide to strength
http://www.opoudjis.net Healed the hole that ripped in 
living"
nickn@unimelb.edu.au - Suzanne Vega, Book Of Dreams
________________________________________________________________________ 
__