[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"
Oh, crap, here we go again. Sorry
----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 11, 2010 9:54:25 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"
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.
Apparently not.
> 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"?
Well, yes and no. Some things that these might refer to are intensional objects, others are not. It depends on how the reference is made (I am speaking here, of course, of the real 'lo' -- in the xorlo these are probably all intensional object just li lo gerku.)
>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.
The relevance of the analogy escapes me. If it is important, we have ways of letting people know how many brodas are involved. Do we have corresponding ways of telling people that this case of 'lo broda' is intensional? The point is that intensionality makes a logical difference, which a logical language ought to show. If the weight of this is to be carried on the gadri (I don't see why it should be), then xorlo doesn't do it.
> 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.
Going back to the time before the BPFK wandered off to cloud-cuckoo-land gets a rather different result.
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.
--
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.