* Monday, 2011-10-24 at 13:53 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> English is a bitch language for pre vision work, so I am still not
> perfectly what your point or question is. So let me say again: the
> referents of {lo vofli cipnralbatrossa} are all flying albatrosses,
> some of them existing now and some of these flying now, but most
> nonflying current albatrosses and and past and future ones. They are
> in the current domain of discourse and in the corresponding extensions
> of "albatross" and "flying" (time labeled) but not generally in the
> extension of "exists"(although there is a long discussion about that,
> which I think my notion of domain resolves).
And those in the extension of "flying" at a certain time are also in the
extension of "exists" at that time? Similarly with "albatross" in place
of "flying"?
> Does that answer your question and agree with your point?
Assuming the answer to the above is yes, then I think so.
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:14, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 18:57 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >
> >> I don't think I ever held that all flying albatrosses had to exist at
> >> a single time ( and I can't figure out what I said that would sound
> >> like that). What I probably did say was that all flying albatrosses
> >> are in the domain of discourse when I say "Flying albatrosses look
> >> funny" as a full generalization. Otherwise it wouldn't be a full
> >> generalization. But that has nothing to do with either existence or
> >> time.
> >> I've forgotten what (i) is, so I am not sure (but then I have
> >> forgotten what Richard's semantics looks like in crucial details).
> >> Especially the generalized arbitrary partition bit.
> >
> > The issue was simply whether, in {lo vofli cipnralbatrossa cu xajmi}, we
> > have
> > (a) a bunch of things, which is at some time a bunch of flying
> > albatrosses
> > or (b) a bunch of things each of which are at some time flying
> > albatrosses.
> >
> > If {lo broda} has to get a bunch which satisfies {broda} (this is what
> > "(ii)" referred to), it seems we're forced to (a), which is no use for
> > making general statements.
> >
> >> On kinds, my position is just that kinds (if you want to use that
> >> word) are just biggest bunches viewed in certain ways and so call for
> >> nothing other than things of the ordinary sort. To be sure, the
> >> recent talk about mass nouns has made me start to think again about
> >> details, but even they don't lead me toward mass-like kinds from which
> >> individuals are temporarily carved out. Not for Lojban anyhow.
> >
> > I seem to be in agreement. But I guess no-one else is, so far.
Attachment:
pgpkI1TMiPYO5.pgp
Description: PGP signature