Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

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

But of course your positiion is not SAE denying but rather another SAE case.  
Ready Madeism, if I understand it, is no more a prioristic than Blobularism; 
both are induced from experiences and language learning -- by Western trained 
linguists and so come up as SAE again (ditto for semantics of natural languages, 
which have historically been built on [linguists' understanding of ] formal 
logic).  It's all plugs and sockets and we just argue about what can be a plug.


----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 6, 2011 11:40:42 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

Martin Bays, On 06/11/2011 15:10:
> * Sunday, 2011-11-06 at 05:16 -0800 - John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
>> Le'see.  I think I understand what is going on here.  Let me say it out for
>> corrections and then I can get on (though I will comment on this 
understanding
>> now).
>
> Let me summarise from my own (entirely neutral, natch) perspective.
>
> And and xorxes are indeed putting forward their SAE-denying metaphysics.

I think that "SAE-denying is a misnomer". Ready-Madeism corresponds to 
traditional Western logic, but not to anything in the languages. I admit I have 
never read Whorf on SAE, but I would like more evidence (chapter and verse, or 
quotes, or google books urls) before accepting that Whorf describes 
Ready-Madeism as SAE.

If anything, you could say that Blobularism is SAE or SAW (Standard Average 
World, because this sort of semantic feature is far more likely to be a language 
universal than a sprachbund feature), since it is arrived at not aprioristically 
like Ready-Made is, but rather is arrived at by induction from natural language 
semantics.

> I was pointing out that one consequence of such a metaphysics is the
> presence of effective ambiguities in quantifier scope, much like those
> in english. They seem to think that this isn't a problem, because they
> are only *effective* ambiguities.

Also, the quasiambiguities are ineluctable and arise not from the language but 
from the world it describes.
  
--And.

-- 
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.