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

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

Gee, what is the argument about (except, of course, {zo'e})? It is quite true 
that plugs have almost no character (maybe none at all) until they plug into 
something, but what of that? Does the blob have any character until a property 
is carved out of it -- or at least pointed out in it?  I can imagine a carefully 
worked out notion, related to blobularism in a way, which would not be plugs and 
sockets, but this ain't it, at least as so far hinted at (not to say 
described).  Readymadeism is just the "common sense" view of the world, induced 
from every experience (so we are taught) in our lives and embedded deep in our 
language.  When linguists (barring the odd Vedic version) came along and 
invented their science and its technology in English and German and French (and 
a bit in a few other essentially similar languages), that world view, if you 
will, got incorporated into the metatheory, so that, for example, S > NP + VP is 
virtually an axiom, though, happily, "every noun has five cases" no longer is.




----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, November 6, 2011 2:57:10 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

John E Clifford, On 06/11/2011 20:08:
> 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

It doesn't seem to me that Ready-Madeism is induced, or at least not on the 
basis of anything more than the most cursory consideration of experience and 
language; and instead it seems to be selected for its formalizability. I don't 
know if that's an egregious misrepresentation of history.

> -- 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).

If all contemporary linguists count as Western-trained.

> It's all plugs and sockets and we just argue about what can be a plug.

Is a predicate a body of sockets, into which arguments plug? If so, then I'd 
argue that there's virtually nothing to say about plugs -- you need know nothing 
about them but their identity, so that you can tell whether two sockets do or 
don't share the same plug. And the argument is about something else.

--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.