I don't see kinds as being intensional, just as those maximal bunches again. {tu'a} may be old school but it does it's job and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. {ko'a sisku lo pavyseljirna} guarantees that there are unicorns in the current universe of discourse, and immediately raises the question of which one(s) you are seeking, which poses problems, given the non diversity of the nonexistent. The other two cases you mention don't pose that problem but rather issues about the meaning of {finti} and {jutmro}, both fairly easily resolved.
Sent from my iPad
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:37 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't quite figured out yet how C-sets and L-sets can be combined in one theory, aside from just running both, with different symbols, say. But then I don't see what the interaction between them would be. I'll work on this.
Well Bunt claims to combine them in his theory, has proved consistency and equivalency with Zermelo-Fraenkel -- all this with natural language semantics aforethought. Unfortunately I don't have any good links. I have been studying Bunt's stuff off scraps I find on the Internet. I suggest the link on Google Books I gave above; it explains ensembles pretty well even if there are pages missing. I will try to write a short sketch myself on ensembles in the near future when I have time, but the literature out there is better than what I can write.
I don't find either "Dogs are mammals" or "Man walked on the Moon" in any way odd.
As I tried to convey in my reply to Pierre Abbat, it's just a little odd that that in the former case we have a necessary universal situation and in the latter case we have a marginal existential situation, and yet in Lojban both have (or are allowed to have) exactly the same logical form. Maybe not odd, but curious at least.
But I do worry about introducing intensions into all this. To be sure, looking for a unicorn clearly takes out of the present domain of discourse to another and that move may be inherently intensional, the -- by fiat, to be sure -- the intensional part falls into {tu'a} and the like, not into the {lo}_expression_. In short, kinds -- if that is what is involved here and in cases like extinction or creation -- seem to me to be exactly about extensions, just maybe not this extesnsion.
{tu'a} is a bit old school isn't it? We are already introducing an intension whenever {lo} refers to a kind, as in {lo grezunca'a cu se finti la .caklis.} or {lo ciprdodo cu jutmro} or {ko'a sisku lo pavyseljirna}.
--
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.
|