* Monday, 2011-10-24 at 19:22 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
> Martin Bays, On 24/10/2011 16:14:
> > * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 18:57 -0400 - John E. Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I seem to be in agreement. But I guess no-one else is, so far.
>
> I don't think me and xorxes disagree with you and John. If there is
> disagreement, it is over how many are in the biggest bunches. You,
> I gather, would say that there is only one possible cardinality for
> the biggest bunch of broda, whereas xorxes and I would say that the
> universe, or universe of discourse, can be understood in infinitely
> many different ways, such that across these different ways the
> cardinality for the biggest bunch of broda varies from one to
> infinity. I think xorxes and me would also say that this holds also of
> referents of {la}, and also pronouns like {mi, do}, and that these
> biggest bunches are treated like individuals.
This last - reification of bunches as individuals - is the only point of
disagreement I would consider key.
Of course I wouldn't claim that there is one fixed universe of discourse
within which all lojban expressions must be interpreted.
I would consider it perverse for you to make what appears to be general
statement about lions, and yet have only one or a few lions in your
universe for the statement to apply to. But that's because I would only
accept lions, and not the kind 'lions', as lions.
Martin
Attachment:
pgp2LKJ5XI3Rs.pgp
Description: PGP signature