* Monday, 2011-11-07 at 19:26 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > I proposing a simple test/definition of when level-mixing has gone too
> > far:
> >
> > A unary broda is Sloppy if, in any domain containing everything which
> > can broda,
>
> Every domain contains everything which can broda in that domain, by
> definition of "everything" and "domain", how could it be otherwise?
> Where are you taking things that broda from?
Let's call this "naive kind theory".
Consider someone who has heard that lojban had kinds, and is familiar
with some of the xorlo uses of them, but hasn't been introduced to your
rules for handling kinds safely, and hasn't really thought hard about the
implications of having kinds.
If this person reads {ro mapku}, I would expect them to think that
(modulo glorked tense and {zo'e}s) it's quantifying over everything
which satisfies {mapku}; they've seen (via xorlo) hats doing so, and
seen kinds of hats doing so, and seen kinds of kinds of hats doing so,
and so on. So they'd expect, in the absence of contextual clues
otherwise, that the claim is about all those things - not just any one
level of them.
That's what I meant by "everything which can broda" - everything which
you might refer to in any context by {lo broda}. So this domain is what
you get if you just glom together willy-nilly all the various domains
you find yourself working in.
> ...
> > They try to dodge this problem by introducing informal rules to avoid
> > level-mixing within a single domain - in particular, they would never
> > consider a domain like those in the definition of Sloppy.
>
> The definition of "Sloppy" is not understandable in the absence of a
> Ready Made universe within which "a domain containing everything which
> can broda" can be interpreted non-trivially.
It isn't really the right definition anyway, thinking about it... it's
defining something more like Super-Sloppiness; Sloppiness should just be
about making *some* non-trivial AE -> EA transition possible, but
a formal definition for that doesn't spring to mind.
You do seem to be able to conceive of domains which incorporate this
kind of Sloppiness - e.g. in the {ro xabju cu turni su'o xabju} example,
you seemed to interpret it with mundane residents on the left and kinds
of resident (and/or the kind 'residents') on the right, such that {su'o
xabju cu se turni ro xabju} was true (in the same domain).
But anyway, the point of working in one domain was just to give
a cleaner exposition of the problem.
Martin
Attachment:
pgph8E_W5MuWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature