Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 7/14/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> (I was trying to keep this as uncomplicated as possible -- but when you
> simplify one place it always makes a probelm sowhere else).

If the goal of the exercise is to demonstrate the equivalence of the
singularist and the pluralist models, wouldn't a simpler language,
without variables, quantifiers, determiners and connectives do
just as well? i.e. doesn't a language whose only terms are names
already contain all the interesting ingredients for that purpose?

Second question: wouldn't a model without mediating concepts
(for either the singularist or the pluralist) be also equivalent to the
models with concepts? i.e. a model where the interpretation is a
function from terms to masses or C relates terms to masses, and
predicates are interpreted as functions from terms into {0,1}?  Do
concepts contribute anything in this simple language?

ki'e mi'e xorxes