Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
> 
> At 09:31 PM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >John and Jordan disagree about what {ro} should mean, not about which
> >philosophy determines their truths. Can we have metalinguistic statements
> >that tell us which set of word--meaning correspondences we are using
> >-- which dictionary the hearer should consult?
> 
> Why not?
> 
> >If so, I suggest a
> >cmavo in COI, "COI brod", where "brod" names the dictionary. But then
> >people will want the official dictionary to list only one meaning, and
> >John and Jordan will disagree about which should be listed for ro.
> 
> Approach 1
> There is only one meaning for ro, with existential import being a 
> manifestation of the (whatever branch of philosophy applies - metaphysics, 
> ontology, semantics, etc.). The dictionary would thus say that ro has 
> existential import in an X context, doesn't have existential import in a Y 
> context, and existential import implies Z in terms of added meanings. X 
> and Y are markable; the default is not specified (and as with tense, optional)
> 
> Approach 2
> Split into two words. The one that gets ro is the one that is most likely 
> to see usage. If this cannot be decided based on intuition, there may 
> actually have been enough usage of a word as common as "ro" for usage to 
> give an indication.

If "ro" is taken to lack import, then "rosu'o" has import.
If "ro" is taken to have import, however, I don't see an obvious PA
compound that lacks import. If someone else does, speak up.

Failing that, I can allow "ro (da poi) broda" to lack import and use
"rosu'o" for Aristotle's A.

-- 
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If he has seen farther than others,
it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves."
--Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)