RE: [jboske] KS Kinds

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

la and cusku di'e

> > >SCHEME C sumti selbri
> > >Instance LE [x]e ka broda xe ka broda
> > >Full Manifestation ma'u ve ka broda ve ka broda
> > >Subkind LE te ka broda te ka broda
> > >Kind ma'u [s]e ka broda se ka broda
>
> NB corrigenda
>
> > Very interesting, but I don't think it can work
> >
> > {LE-Kind broda} should be a possible term to use in
> > any slot that will take {LE-Instance broda}. If something
> > means "... is an instance of", then I want to be able to
> > talk of Mr Instance, and say "Mr Instance is an instance
> > of ...". So I think distinguishing intensional from
> > extensional reference cannot be a job for a selbri
>
> Can you explain a bit more?

If I claim:

su'o xe ka gerku cu broda
At least some dog is broda

then I want to also be able to claim that the kind does:

ma'u se ka gerku cu broda
Mr Dog is broda

for any possible broda.

So what happens when "broda" is "xe ka gerku", "is an
instance of dog".

su'o xe ka gerku cu xe ka gerku
At least one dog is (an instance of) a dog.

ma'u se ka gerku cu xe ka gerku
Mr Dog is (an instance of) a dog.

Is that correect? "Mr Dog" should satisfy the same predicates
that "some dog" satisfies.

> The idea is that {LE broda} can be seen as an abbreviation
> of {LE xe ka broda}, where the syntax allows it:
> {LE xe ka mi djuno ma'u du'u ke'a brodu}
> and {LE xe ka ro pendo be ke'a cu brodu}
> and {LE xe ka ke'a e mi klama}
> cannot be abbreviated thus.
>
> The scheme does not offer abbreviations for se/te/ve ka,
> though Nick may eventually magic one up.

I understand, but I'm not convinced that Kind and Instance
are things we can predicate of something. They are names
for types of reference, I think, not descriptions of referents.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail