Re: [lojban] SAE was lojban and PR

["John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

(1) Like FOL, Lojban has an infinite number of featureless plugs: variables, ko'a series, etc.  And, as you have pointed out, all descriptions are initially a featureless {zo'e} to which a predicate is applied.
(2) The socket terminology doesn't carry over well to masses and kinds, because it is essential to sockets (properties, etc.) that they have holes in them, are unsaturated, as Frege said.  Masses and kind appear to be complete in themselves,but also with features so that can be known (unlike individuals in the earlier version).  Similarly, of course, individuals are indeed derivative, a chunks or projections of the real stuff.  It appears, haeceity aside, that these things may interpenetrate one another according to some rules or tinge one another and that what we call individuals (if we do at all) arise from slice or projections from such contaminated portions, as it were.
(3) As noted, the plug and socket line is not the beginning of classification, but merely a catch phrase for one view.  And, plugs and sockets are correlative; you can't have a functioning system without both.
Sent from my iPad

On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:29, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, I certainly don't think that Lojban is SAE in the Sprachbund sense; as Pierre points out it has very few of the characteristic features.  On the other hand, the metaphysical case seems fairly easy -- or did until Mr. Broda showed up again. The whole plug and socket nature of a Lojban bridi screams it.
> 
> (1)If I'm reading the plug and socket metaphor correctly, isn't Lojban
> mostly socket (BRIVLA) with very few underived plugs (KOhA)?
> 
>>  But now that there are other interpretations which need to be considered, I suppose we will have to wait a while. (but I still think it is and the other interpretations are just wrong.  This is not, of course, what JCB wanted ( and I did tell him he didn't have what he wanted), but a metaphysics-free language is not possible under SWH.  Nor, I think is one that treats all possibilities equally easily.  We can do mass/kind pretty easily in Lojban, though it always seems periphrastic.
> 
> (2)A mass/kind language would be an all plugs language, with sockets
> being derivative?
> 
>>  I am less sure about flux or sense-data languages, mainly because I really don't know how they work at all ( I miss things).
> 
> (3)Wouldn't Lojban fit better as one of these? Assuming the
> classification is all plugs vs. plugs and sockets vs. all sockets, it
> seems that Lojban falls squarely in the last one, with a rather simple
> device ("lo") for turning sockets into plugs.
> 
> 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.