* Friday, 2011-10-21 at 15:43 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> I'm not too clear on what you thought I was proposing, though it must
> not be too far from what I have in mind. I am not sure that Hans'
> paper will help you much, for, while I taken over some things from him
> in terms of dynamic domains and alternate domains, I have developed
> somewhat differently, as Lojban seems to require.
I would be interested to hear about what you've developed.
> Particular quantification is the old term for existential
> quantification, with the advantage that it does not appear to claim
> more than something is in the domain, in particular, does not appear
> to claim it is the extension of "exist" {zasti}.
Ah! Then yes, please read 'particular' whenever I write 'existential'.
> Sorry about the mumble there; I am just never sure which procedure
> works best: a supply of things that turn up in different guises in
> each world or a different set of things for each world, somehow
> sometimes linked between worlds. Neither is perfect, but each has
> it's uses. (Hindu v. Buddhist, as so many things are).
Well, the former is essentially a special case of the latter - namely
where the links consist of a coherent family of bijections. I'm not sure
what the latter would help with.
I don't yet understand how you deal with the flying dodos. Slightly more
specifically, how you'd handle "flying dodos look silly, but there
aren't actually now any flying dodos".
Martin
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 15:00, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * Friday, 2011-10-21 at 08:46 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >> If you want to say that flying dodos look silly, then your domain of discourse
> >> (at least in Lojban) contains flying dodos. {lo} expressions always imply the
> >> particular quantification on their defining predication. Not that such things
> >> need exist, of course (part of the reason I use "particular" rather than
> >> "existential" for that quantifier)
> > What's particular quantification? I'm not familiar with the term.
> >
> >> It is not clear that this is a different approach to tense and
> >> intensions, though it may be a different approach to domains of
> >> discourse (looking at Kamp again).
> >
> > Discourse representation theory? Should I just read about that if I want
> > to understand you? I think I do have Kamp's paper on my harddrive.
> >
> >> The properties these nonexistent things may have probably derive from
> >> the ones they have in worlds where they exist (not necessarily the
> >> same things, mind you, but the things at the other end of some sort of
> >> projection)
> >
> > Not really with you here.
> >
> > Well, it seems that I didn't understand correctly your solution. I don't
> > see much wrong with the solution I understood you as proposing... but
> > I'm happy to have multiple working solutions before having to pick one!
Attachment:
pgpyMbXAfI5G_.pgp
Description: PGP signature