Lojban is constructed on W.v.O.Quine's ontological standpoint (see the
Complete Lojban Language (CLL), 1.6). According to Quine (1948),
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is
"[...] Now how are we to adjudicate among rival ontologies? Certainly
the answer is not provided by the semantical formula “To be is to be
the value of a variable”; this formula serves rather, conversely, in
testing the conformity of a given remark or doctrine to a prior
ontological standard. We look to bound variables in connection with
ontology not in order to know what there is, but in order to know what
a given remark or doctrine, ours or someone else’s, says there is; and
this much is quite properly a problem involving language. But what
there is is another question."
In my words, Quine means:
- the statement "∃xf(x)" says that "there is x that satisfies f(x)"
under an ontological point of view;
- this fact does not answer the question if there is REALLY such an x
that satisfies f(x).
With xorlo, Lojban becomes more clearly conformable to Quine's
ontology.
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo
" [...] we, the BPFK, made a consensus decision that we do not make
rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues; that is, we will not
tell you whether phrase X has meaning or validity. [...]"
{zasti} is only a gismu: "f" of f(x); Lojban should not owe {zasti}
any ontological duty.
At present, jbovlaste does not have Lojbanic definition of {zasti},
but I would suggest the following definition:
{x1 zasti x2 x3} = {x2 manri lo nu su'o da zo'u da me x1 kei x3} = "x2
is a frame of reference/standard for observing/measuring/determining
the event that there is y that satisfies (y is x1) with/by rules x3."
Here, the ontological statement {su'o da zo'u da me x1} is in the
abstractor {nu ... kei}; the whole bridi therefore does not actually
make a claim that {su'o da zo'u da me x1} (this inference is mainly
based on the CLL, 9.7: "Example 7.1 claims that the plant grows, but
only refers to the event of watering it in an abstraction bridi [...]
without actually making a claim."); the whole bridi is therefore not
an ontological statement.
{da} is a variable to be bound, which should concern the ontological
statement of Lojban.
On these conditions, the statements of .arpis. are considered as
follows:
{da cevni} = {su'o da zo'u da cevni} = "∃x (x is god)" = "there is x
that satisfies (x is god)."
{lo cevni ku zasti} = {manri lo nu su'o da zo'u da me lo cevni} = "the
event that there is x that satisfies (x is god) is observed/measured/
determined."
{da poi cevni cu zasti} = {su'o da zo'u manri lo nu su'o de zo'u de me
da poi cevni} = "there is x that satisfies (the event that there is y
that satisfies (y is x that is god) is observed/measured/determined.)"
Among them, only {da cevni} says "there is god."
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.