Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:35:21 EDT

In a message dated 8/11/2002 1:52:35 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> but I
> wonder whether the crux of the disagreement between you is
> what it means to say "there is a" - as in "There is a coat that
> I wear the blanket as". Jorge says that's not what "I wear
> the blanket as a coat" means, and you say it is.
>>
I hope I never said that I thought that I thought that that was what the 
sentence meant and that I did say that there was no obvious reason -- other 
than gut feeling -- to reject it. I didn't say (I hope) also that I thought 
{dasni} had an intensional place, only that that would solve xorxes problem 
with the first solution (it didn't, but for unexprected -- an largely obscure 
reasons).

<<
If we evaluate
the claim over the universe of actual things, then Jorge is
right. If we evaluate it over the universe of actual and
imaginary things, then pc is right.
xorxes would find the second reading, with the quantifiers over possible 
coats, equally objectionable (or he should, if I understand his argument). 
And more so, since apparently you can only quantify over what there is in 
this *world.

<<
Allegedly, the distinction is disambiguated by "lo ka'e kosta"
v. "lo ca'a kosta" or "lo pu'i kosta" (I don't know what the
difference between those two is), but I doubt that usage bears
that out, since usage tends to reflect the ma'oste glosses of
'capability', and not the rather different notion of selection
of universes of individuals.
Yeah, we are short on logical (etc.) possibilities but long on Aristotelian 
potentials ({ca'a} apparently means it's at it now, {pu'i} that it has done 
it, so proven its potential [{ka'a} leaves some room for doubt -- or this is 
about various level of "can"] even thoigh it is not at it at the moment.)