Subject: Re: [lojban] po'u considered harmful

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:35:39 +0000

[me trying to decide whether to take a break from excruciatingly tedious
admin and stay late in the office, or whether to knuckle down & get home
earlier. Lojban seduces me into the former...]

pc:
#me ME sumti to selbri convert sumti to selbri/tanru element; x1 is specific 
#to [sumti] in aspect x2
#
#This is still running on some official lists. It is usefully vague.  
#Presumably Cowan wants x2 to be jest' (identity/membership/inclusion), And 
#wants it to be haeceity, I want it open.

I'm not sure whether it's haecceity or quiddity that I want it to be. I do want
it to be the case that two different individuals (e,g, 1980 vintage And, &
1990 vintage And) can have the same 'haecceity' ('And') -- since that 
conflicts with my understanding of 'haecceity', perhaps I mean quiddity. 
IIRC you came up with some relevant Sanskrit term (visheka?).

As for why I want it to be what I want it to be, partly this is because I think
its the most useful and the most needed meaning, and partly because it
is because I think certain other meanings don't work.

#<I know that that is the official line, but I think it fails. "me X" is licit
#and meaningful even when X has no referent. For example, "mi me
#lo broda" = "Ex x is broda & I have the property of being x". In
#contrast, "I am a referent of _lo broda_" would be nonsensical.>
#
#No, it is equivalent to the previous case, since the referents of {lo broda} 
#are just the broda. If X has no referent, then {me X} is simply false for 
#every case -- but meaningful.

We seem to be using 'referent' in crucially different senses. But taking
what you say, if the referent of 'lo gerku' is dogs, then it would seem
that "X me lo gerku" would mean either "is each dog" or "is all dogs",
whereas I wan;t it to mean "Ey y is dog & X has property of being y".

In your reply keep in mind that I may have misunderstood you ( & not
wilfully!)

--And.