<<
but I
wonder whether the crux of the disagreement between you is
what it means to say "there is a" - as in "There is a coat that
I wear the blanket as". Jorge says that's not what "I wear
the blanket as a coat" means, and you say it is.
>>
I hope I never said that I thought that I thought that that was what the sentence meant and that I did say that there was no obvious reason -- other than gut feeling -- to reject it. I didn't say (I hope) also that I thought {dasni} had an intensional place, only that that would solve xorxes problem with the first solution (it didn't, but for unexprected -- an largely obscure reasons).
<<
If we evaluate
the claim over the universe of actual things, then Jorge is
right. If we evaluate it over the universe of actual and
imaginary things, then pc is right.
>>
xorxes would find the second reading, with the quantifiers over possible coats, equally objectionable (or he should, if I understand his argument). And more so, since apparently you can only quantify over what there is in this *world.
<<
Allegedly, the distinction is disambiguated by "lo ka'e kosta"
v. "lo ca'a kosta" or "lo pu'i kosta" (I don't know what the
difference between those two is), but I doubt that usage bears
that out, since usage tends to reflect the ma'oste glosses of
'capability', and not the rather different notion of selection
of universes of individuals.
>>
Yeah, we are short on logical (etc.) possibilities but long on Aristotelian potentials ({ca'a} apparently means it's at it now, {pu'i} that it has done it, so proven its potential [{ka'a} leaves some room for doubt -- or this is about various level of "can"] even thoigh it is not at it at the moment.)
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
|
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.