RE: [jboske] The two faces of tu'o (was: Nick on propositionalism&c. (was: Digest Number 134))

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

Lojbab:
> At 11:54 PM 1/10/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Upon reflection, a "this is tautological" marker should be an evidential
> > > UI. se'o might work; any sentient being should be expected to be able to
> > > process tautologies
> >
> >No objections to that, but I object to having to be more verbose in
> >order to indicate that I'm working with an ontology that is in some
> >ways simpler than the one Lojban forces on me 
> 
> It seems to me that we might do best, if dealing with a different ontology 
> that requires it, to specify that the quantifiers and gadri might have 
> subtly different semantics under certain ontologies. We have precedent for 
> this in having ways to specify operator precedence that differs from the 
> standard. Why not use metalinguistics to specify an unusual ontology? 
> Since I doubt that the differences matter most of the time, choose things 
> so as to cause minimum effect by a change, then switch ontologies 
> metalinguistically, thereby changing the semantics along with it, when it 
> is necessary to use the differing ontology in a discussion 
> 
> That way we don't have to be committed to only one ontology with others 
> being a schismatic Lojban 

If SL grammar actually embodies a different ontology from the one I
want to express (-- it's not yet clear whether this is actually the
case) then this metalinguistic thing would have to indicate that a
nonstandard grammar is in operation. And unless that alternative
grammar is also part of the prescription, then we're back to different
dialects.

--And.