Subject: Re: [lojban] x3 of dasni

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 17:19:17 EDT

In a message dated 8/13/2002 3:31:34 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> Whereas I think we cannot screw up in that respect even if
> we try, so there is no "ought", because
> intensionality/extensionality is not in the places
> themselves. We don't need for example an intensionality police
> to make sure that all places in all new lujvo and fu'ivla that
> are introduced into the language comply with {lo broda cu brode}
> = {da poi broda zo'u da brode}. This relationship holds
> automatically for all broda, no matter how devious you try to
> make the definition.
>>

Well, I suppose you could say that a generation of Lojbanist misspoke 
themselves regularly saying {mi nitcu lo dinko}. Saying that they failed to 
realize that the place was intensional seems fairer to them and explains the 
moves taken to correct the situation: changing what typically goes into those 
places and then adding devices to restore the original form as nearly as 
possible (and it makes no sense of either the dioscussion about {sisku} or 
its ultimate -- horrible -- resolution). To be sure, your
description now is the ideal and perhaps has been achieved by fiat (so 
{kalte} requires that there be game around, for example). If that fiat has 
taken place, then you are right, but a fair number of words ({kalte} and 
{dasni} for examples) don't mean anything much like what they seem to. That 
is hardly a new situation, but does not seem necessary here, when a number of 
standard solutions are available (even if we can't get them into the 
dictionary).

<<
The propositions are referenced extensionally.
{lo du'u broda cu brode} is equivalent to
{da poi ke'a du'u broda zo'u da brode}.
Yes, exactly -- but that doesn't make {lo du'u broda} less intensional.