[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate




la pycyn cusku di'e

>Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way.

From my point of view quantification is the key issue here.

>Remember,
>in Lojban, all entities are on the same level in the grammar, so it is as
>easy to quantify over the members of a set of types or intensions (not
>necessarily the same thing, by the way) as of a set of dogs.

Yes. That's why {tu'o} is useful to block that ever present
quantification when it should not be there.

>One hopes that
>the type of a thing is not in the meaning of the word for that thing, 
>because
>that will lead to an infinite regress, circling forever around to get out 
>the
>type, given only tokens.  Unless you wan to fall back on the bootstrapping
>empirical procedure of science and leave a forever incompletely specified
>type -- which makes talk of types pretty senseless against other locutions.

I certainly have no expectation of having a full specification
of a type in most cases. And I wouldn't know where to look for
the type other than in the meaning of the word.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/