Re: [lojban] Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com>
>
> "lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda".  In other words it's simply something that is an x1
> of broda.  Nothing more is specified.
> _________
>
> Well, not exactly.

Yes, that's exactly how it works.

>  For one thing, 'lo broda' has to refer to an intensional object, at least sometimes (and how to tell when?), regardless of what 'broda' means.

What's an intensional object? Things like "lo se nitcu"? "lo se
claxu"? "lo se djica"? "lo xanri"?

>So, if it has a single meaning, it must be of something that is at once extensional and intensional -- not something that brodas are likely to be (maybe even can be).

Brodas are not likely to be two and three things at once, and yet "lo
broda" can sometimes refer to two things and sometimes to three, and
sometimes be completely unspecified as to number.

> This is a major flaw, but one that could be removed fairly simply, basically by going (back) to the definition you suggestand sticking to it (this involves getting xorxes to update his notion of universe of discourse and accept a standard write-around, but anything is possible).

The definition Stela gave is the one given in the BPFK gadri section,
so there is nothing to go back to, we are already there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.