<<
When I look at {tu'a lo dinko} I see {le du'u lo dinko cu co'e}.
Maybe I am overly structured, but I can't see this as nails in
intension, I keep seeing it as a proposition about nails.
>>
That - and other abstracts like events and properties -- is a large part of what "nails in intension" means. "Argument," remember is a suface syntactic term, not a semantic one.
<<
Part of the problem is that you and I are speaking different
languages. You start from the premise that places can be
extensional or intensional
>>
So, not different langauges but different assumptions in the language. I think that all places ought to be extensional, but that we screw up occasionally.
<<
To me all places are neutral in
this regard. It is only the way of referring to the members
of a set that can be extensional or intensional. Quantified
descriptors (lo/le) are extensional, and non-quantified
descriptors (lo'e) are intensional. Neither {le ka ce'u broda}
nor {le du'u lo broda cu co'e} is for me a reference to the
members of lo'i broda, rather they refer to
properties/propositions.
>>
But you can't have it both ways, {le du'u ce'u broda} is a quantified descriptor but is intensional. And it is, of course a reference to mebers of lo'i du'u ce'u broda. What (God help us all) would {lo'e du'u ce'u broda} be like?
<<
That [as a kind of disjoint tanru]'s not a bad way of looking at it! {broda lo'e brode} can be thought of as {brode broda zi'o}, except that the tanru
relationship is much more precise in the first case.
>>
And how will all this expand when we try to explain the tanru; what comes after {ta'unai}? That is, what precisely is the tanru relation involved?
We have gotten a long way from archetypes or intensions or anything else of where we started here. Is there a binding thread, an intuition that you are trying to formalize? If so, what is it?
| 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.