Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:02:21 +0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

>Quantification does not enter ere at all in any interesting way.

>From my point of view quantification is the key issue here.

>Remember,
>in Lojban, all entities are on the same level in the grammar, so it is as
>easy to quantify over the members of a set of types or intensions (not
>necessarily the same thing, by the way) as of a set of dogs.

Yes. That's why {tu'o} is useful to block that ever present
quantification when it should not be there.

>One hopes that
>the type of a thing is not in the meaning of the word for that thing, 
>because
>that will lead to an infinite regress, circling forever around to get out 
>the
>type, given only tokens. Unless you wan to fall back on the bootstrapping
>empirical procedure of science and leave a forever incompletely specified
>type -- which makes talk of types pretty senseless against other locutions.

I certainly have no expectation of having a full specification
of a type in most cases. And I wouldn't know where to look for
the type other than in the meaning of the word.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com