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

Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate


la pycyn cusku di'e


 What does this have
to do with what we have been talking about (though I admit I may have lost
the original point after all this time and all the gymnastics that you have
gone through to avoid giving clear answers)?


I assure you that I am not doing it on purpose.
But the cases we were discussing were -- I thought -- about getting one token of a type out of a set of such tokens -- each of them being in fact an event 
type.


Getting tokens out is done with le/lo. I don't think we
disagree there. {ro lo broda} gets each token from {lo'i broda},
{ro lo nu broda} gets each token from {lo'i nu broda}.


That still seems to me to be inherently extensional for all that the
extension is made up of intensional objects.


Indeed, le/lo are always extensional. On the other hand:

{lo'e broda} gets the type from {lo'i broda} and
{lo'e nu broda} gets the type from {lo'i nu broda}.

For any given set, there is one type. (Of course there are
sub-types to go with the respective sub-sets.)


Maybe we
need to set up some terminology so that the various sorts of intensions are
sorted out.


Ok.
I don't know what the intension of a set is unless it is the intension of the expression whose extension is the set. Calling that the sense or designation would take it out of the mass of things going on here. It is an intensional object, meaning that various operations -- fronting, quantifier binding, and 
Leibniz's law -- don't apply in expressions referring to it.


The way I understand it, fronting, quantifier binding, etc don't
apply when you _use_ an intension. When you _talk about_ it, you
tokenize it. {le ka ce'u broda} is used to talk about the intension.
The intension is in this case a token. With {lo'e broda} I make use
of the intension, I don't refer to the intension.


Let's keep
"intension" as a general term for objects which are referred to by
expressions with those properties.


Ok. We can say that {broda} is always intensional.
But {lo broda} and {lo ka broda} are always extensional
(one referring to broda-tokens and the other to ka-tokens).
{lo'e broda} is the way I found to keep the intensionality
of the broda-type at sumti level. {lo ka broda} maintains
the intensionality of {broda}, (it is extensional for
ka) but it is the wrong kind of object when we have a place
that requires broda-tokens or broda-types.


Types and tokens are another matter entirely, though perhaps practically
related. The lowest level token is a concrete individual at a given moment. 
From there on up, the type relative to a given token is an abstract and

quasi-intensional object which the relative token manifests or however you
want to put it.


And how do you make use of that type? (I don't mean talk
about it, but make use of it.)


The two share some properties and these are defining for the
type -- and they typically "have" them in different ways, though the
terminology here is muddier than usual: the token typically is subject of the property, the type contains the property (to take what seems to me the least 
confusing pair of possibilities).


Yes, you are _talking about_ the type. I'd like to
see some uses.


The quasiness of the intensionality comes
about from the fact that some real-world truths affect the issue of what
tokens may fall under a given type: the fact that Jill is Jack's bitchy
sister means that the proposition that Jack's bitchy sister is asleep falls
under the same type as the proposition that Jill is asleep, even though they 
are not the same proposition.  I take it that {du'u la djil sipna} is the
predicate satisfied by all the propositions that fall under the same
proximate type as that Jill is asleep does. I suppose that the sense of that 
predicate expression is pretty close to just that, the property of falling
under that proximate type.


Ok, as I said before, I am not very clear about the sense
of the predicate headed by {du'u}. My instinct says that
{lo'i du'u ...} has only one member, and in one-member sets
making the type-token distinction is probably hair-splitting.
But if {lo'i du'u ...} has many members then {du'u} should
behave like any other {broda}.


Why not, in complete generality, use {le du'u ce'u broda} in this case
(assuming that this refers to the sense corresponding to the reference lo'i
broda, i.e., the sense of {broda}, which it ought do)?


That is how I would refer to the intension, yes. (I would use
{ka} rather than {du'u}, but that's beside the point.)
I use {lo'e} not to refer to intensions but to make use
of them:

     ta simlu le ka ce'u sfofa
     That appears to have the property of being a sofa.

     ta simsa lo'e sfofa
     That is like a sofa.

I can't use {le ka ce'u sfofa} with {simsa}, because {simsa}
compares same level objects, not objects with properties.
I can use {le ka ce'u sfofa} with {simlu} because {simlu}
is an object-property relationship.


I suppose that
"when I don't want to quantify over the extesion of the set" means "when I
want to talk about the sense of the expression delimiting to the set rather
than to the set itself or its members"


It means "when I want to use the sense", not "talk about the sense".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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