[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"
That's nice to know, but then I suspect (as I noted) that our difference is in how 'lo broda' is interpreted and that brings up the universe of discourse (the range of bound variables). Or perhaps it is what is the right way to express a non-specific desire: "I want a dog", say.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 11, 2010 10:27:58 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Response to Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:08 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@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.
Yes, exactly so.
> 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.
OK, so it seems you agree that "lo se claxu" can sometimes refer to an
intensional object, and sometimes 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.)
I meant the references made as I made them, namely: "lo se nitcu", "lo
se claxu", "lo se djica", "lo xanri". I don't know why you need to
make any assumptions about xorlo, since I have just told you how it
works, why that "probably"? It's simple:
lo se nitcu = zo'e noi ke'a se nitcu
lo se claxu = zo'e noi ke'a se claxu
lo se djica = zo'e noi ke'a se djica
lo xanri = zo'e noi ke'a xanri
lo gerku = zo'e noi ke'a gerku
> If it is important, we have ways of letting people know how many brodas are involved.
Indeed.
> Do we have corresponding ways of telling people that this case of 'lo broda' is intensional?
Probably yes, but "lo" by itself doesn't do it.
> The point is that intensionality makes a logical difference, which a logical language ought to show.
Of course it does, just like number, manner of distribution, etc, make
logical differences, that sometimes matter and sometimes don't.
> If the weight of this is to be carried on the gadri (I don't see why it should be),
Neither do I see why it should be. We agree!
>then xorlo doesn't do it.
Of course it doesn't, that's the whole point. It is not something that
has to be carried on the gadri. (Unless perhaps the gadri "lo'e" has
something to do with it, but nobody really knows how "lo'e" really
works yet, and in that case the keyword "typical" would be nonsense.)
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.