RE: [jboske] pc's comments on Nick's: "Monty's Unicorns, Fermat version", and acouple other issues

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> The bit that went over my head was "names are quantifiers". The rest I 
> didn't
> understand, but not for a lack of a vague handle on the terminology.
>
> --And.

My guess is that he meant to write "names are quantified".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


> >>> lojbab@lojban.org 01/08/03 03:44pm >>>
> At 05:09 AM 1/8/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >some more responses to pc's other comments:
> >
> > > >The bit about a name having to have a property to be used comes from 
> the
> > > >fact that names are quantifiers (this cuts the grammar size roughly 
> in
> > > >half, eliminating a vast array of duplicates) and quantifiers are all
> > > >restricted (second order relations between sets). Taking the 
> properties
> > > >to be a haeceity was a mistake I remember arguing with (probably) 
> Gaifman
> > > >back when I was studying to be a Nyayika and so a believer in
> > > >visheshas. Even without vishesha, using this as haeceity seems to me 
> a
> > > >bad idea, since it makes transworld comparisons (ctfs like "If 
> Socrates
> > > >were a Seventeenth century Irish washerwoman") impossible to deal 
> with
> > > >naturally


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus