[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate
In a message dated 9/10/2002 2:04:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<<
> >Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way.
>
> From my point of view quantification is the key issue here.
>>
And I still don't see why: if you have a set of things of any sort, then you
can quantify over the members of that set. What does the fact that the set
contains abstract things have to do with denying this triviality?
<<
>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.
>>
But, why should the quantifier not be there? Even if ythe set has only one
member, quantification is still meaningful -- indeed, even if the set has no
members. It surely is meaningful when the set has an indefinite number of
members.
<<
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.
>>
I agree that,as a practical matter, we may never know all the details of a
type -- at least that we may always discover/decide on new ones not
previously noted -- or move to another level of specificity. And I agree
that that is intimately connected with meaning, but, if we are to have both
notions -- as we probably are -- they are not the same. Meaning, after all,
is a property of words. A type relates to tokens, things, and generally not
words (of course, every word has several types, but that is just a result of
words being things).
If you ever tell me what you mean by what you say, we may discover we are not
in much disagreement, but, for now, we are pretty clearly not together,
though where either of us is is not at all clear to the other, I gather.
--part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 9/10/2002 2:04:13 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<<<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way.<BR>
<BR>
>From my point of view quantification is the key issue here</BLOCKQUOTE>.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
>><BR>
And I still don't see why: if you have a set of things of any sort, then you can quantify over the members of that set. What does the fact that the set contains abstract things have to do with denying this triviality?<BR>
<BR>
<<<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">>Remember,<BR>
>in Lojban, all entities are on the same level in the grammar, so it is as<BR>
>easy to quantify over the members of a set of types or intensions (not<BR>
>necessarily the same thing, by the way) as of a set of dogs.<BR>
<BR>
Yes. That's why {tu'o} is useful to block that ever present<BR>
quantification when it should not be there.<BR>
>><BR>
But, why should the quantifier not be there? Even if ythe set has only one member, quantification is still meaningful -- indeed, even if the set has no members. It surely is meaningful when the set has an indefinite number of members.<BR>
<BR>
<<<BR>
I certainly have no expectation of having a full specification<BR>
of a type in most cases. And I wouldn't know where to look for<BR>
the type other than in the meaning of the word.<BR>
>><BR>
<BR>
I agree that,as a practical matter, we may never know all the details of a type -- at least that we may always discover/decide on new ones not previously noted -- or move to another level of specificity. And I agree that that is intimately connected with meaning, but, if we are to have both notions -- as we probably are -- they are not the same. Meaning, after all, is a property of words. A type relates to tokens, things, and generally not words (of course, every word has several types, but that is just a result of words being things).<BR>
<BR>
If you ever tell me what you mean by what you say, we may discover we are not in much disagreement, but, for now, we are pretty clearly not together, though where either of us is is not at all clear to the other, I gather.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_162.13a880f1.2aafb015_alt_boundary--
--- Begin Message ---
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
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End Message ---