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

[And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>]

John E Clifford, On 06/11/2011 20:41:
> Am I to infer from this that Lion is actually lion and so exists in space time,
> rather than a kind, which exists in some intensional realm.  Or do you actually
> mean that Lion is just a bunch of lions looked at in one way as opposed to some
> other?

Lion is actually lion and so exists in space time. But speakers may differ on whether to describe something as (or on whether they perceive something to be) Lion or a lion or a bunch of lions.

I personally believe that language (in general, not just Lojban) deals only in things that are in some intensional realm, but certain types of intensional things have instances/tokens in spacetime. But all talk is about types, not tokens. Lion is a type that does have tokens in spacetime, but lionhood is a type that doesn't. Within the intensional realm, Lion is classified among quadrupeds and things with skin and things with tokens in spacetime.

--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.