<<
Whereas I think we cannot screw up in that respect even if.
we try, so there is no "ought", because
intensionality/extensionality is not in the places
themselves. We don't need for example an intensionality police
to make sure that all places in all new lujvo and fu'ivla that
are introduced into the language comply with {lo broda cu brode}
= {da poi broda zo'u da brode}. This relationship holds
automatically for all broda, no matter how devious you try to
make the definition
>>
Well, I suppose you could say that a generation of Lojbanist misspoke themselves regularly saying {mi nitcu lo dinko}. Saying that they failed to realize that the place was intensional seems fairer to them and explains the moves taken to correct the situation: changing what typically goes into those places and then adding devices to restore the original form as nearly as possible (and it makes no sense of either the dioscussion about {sisku} or its ultimate -- horrible -- resolution). To be sure, your
description now is the ideal and perhaps has been achieved by fiat (so {kalte} requires that there be game around, for example). If that fiat has taken place, then you are right, but a fair number of words ({kalte} and {dasni} for examples) don't mean anything much like what they seem to. That is hardly a new situation, but does not seem necessary here, when a number of standard solutions are available (even if we can't get them into the dictionary).
<<
The propositions are referenced extensionally.
{lo du'u broda cu brode} is equivalent to
{da poi ke'a du'u broda zo'u da brode}.
>>
Yes, exactly -- but that doesn't make {lo du'u broda} less intensional.
| 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.