|
In a message dated 9/27/2002 4:14:51 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > {roda zasti} is a Lojban tautology -- and is unexpressible in >> I meant (and think the Lojban said) "everything exists for the interlocutors in the current world" The point is that, to talk about something not her-annd-now existing, the official line is that we shift (otherwise unmarkedly) to a world in which it soes exist. The plan here is to talk meaningfully without making the shift. But, yes, {roda du de} is a tautology (and remains so, though the meaning of {de} changes), {roda zasti} is merely an axiom. << > We begin by distinguishing between nuclear and extra-nuclear properties and > relations. This presentation seems to have some things in common with my proto-predicates, which would correspond to the extra-nuclear relations >> Well, they share the property that neither is as clear as one would like, at least. But I agree that there may be a deeper relation (in fact a nuclear one as "equally unclear" pretty clearly is not ) << My proto-predicates for these would be: x1 is the property of something that exists. x1 is the property of something fictional. x1 is the property of something possible. x1 is the property of something thought about by Parsons. >> Wher, as we know, the "something" is not to be taken literally in either way: neither a further property of some thing that happens to ... nor as a property that applies to everything that ..., nor yet, apparently, the property of ...ing. I take it that nuclear proerties are just a clssification of ordinary proeprties, not another kind of properties. so plain old "is blue" is a nuclear property, without any complications. << >and siome new new that arise within the > system itself like "is complete." Most other properties are neclear (at > least until proven otherwise) and, further, every extranuclear property has a > "watered down" version which is nuclear. The way I see it, every normal predicate (nuclear) has its corresponding proto-predicate (non-nuclear), but it is clear that some non-nuclears would be called into use more often than others. >> At this point it becomes clear that the nuclear/etranuclear distinction is onto somehting different that your protopredicates (where have you used this terminology before by the way -- I'm not sure now which critters you are talking about). The relation between the two is reversed, that is, as noted, every extranuclear has a corresponding nuclear ("watered down") but not necessarily conversely. << >what we would call the various ways of > plugging the relation, filling all the places but one with particulars. That > aRb holds is then the conjunction of the claims that a has the property of > being R to b and that b has the property of being Rd by a. This would go something like this with protopredicates: ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda le ka ce'u du ko'e ije ko'e se kairselbroda le ka ce'u du ko'a >> Yes, that is similar, except that the relation between term and property is always just {ckaji}. << > Thus, though Holmes might have the proprety of being knighted > by Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria does not have the property of having > knighted Holmes (though her surrogate would). i la xolmyz cu se nolgau lo'e glico nolraitru i ku'i no glico nolraitru cu nolgau la xolmyz >> I'd stick with {la viktorias}, since bringing in {lo'e} -- whatever that means -- introduces a whole range of problems which this shift is designed to help solve, not to have incorporated into it. In particular, the Victoria we are talking about is the familiar one, not one of her surrogates in a book or elsewhere; that is, an existent, not a non-existent. (and notice, since all her surrogates are English queens, the {no glico nolraitru} is false). To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |