From pycyn@aol.com Thu Feb 08 11:05:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 8 Feb 2001 19:05:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 33042 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 19:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2001 19:05:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 19:05:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.e8.103f8b3d (3703) for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:05:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:05:24 EST Subject: RE:su'u (verbose) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e8.103f8b3d.27b447f4_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_e8.103f8b3d.27b447f4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The story so far (I apologize if I get positions misconnected to names): xo= d=20 used NU sumti, Robin-the-Canuck reported that that was ungrammatical by=20 jbofi'e, xod replied that it should be grammatical since it made sense. Xorxes showed why it should not be grammatical - if it were then NU sumti=20 brivla would be ambiguous, contrary to other well-established facts.=A0 Cow= an=20 added that it didn't make sense either. pc and others insisted that it did= =20 make sense and attempted to spell out some of the senses, e.g., that=A0 {ka= lo=20 broda} would be just {broda} and {ka la Cmen} as near as possible to "is=20 called 'Cmen'" and even suggested some ways to get the form by the parser=20 (using the usually elidable closer {kei}).=A0 pc complicated matters by not= ing=20 that there are several things that NU sumti might mean; in particular, {ka}= =20 sumti might be either of at least two associates of something referred to b= y=20 the sumti, the individual concept to the thing (vishesha, what picks that=20 thing out in every world in which it exists - or picks out its counterpart = in=20 every world that has one - and so is not a property in any world) or the=20 sense of the sumti [this is clearer than pc's original formulation, which= =20 was buried in logical trivia] (a set of properties associated with the sumt= i=20 which allows one to pick out things to which the sumti might refer in each= =20 world).=A0pc's point is that these are different but that both need express= ion=20 in Lojban and neither has one at the economical level of mere NU sumti (not= =20 that the necessarily need expression so compactly, being rarely used).=A0 T= he=20 first of these critters is essential to the object it attaches to, make it = be=20 who it is; the second is incidental to the object, though perhaps essential= =20 to its being called what it is called - in other worlds, the same (or=20 counterpart) object might be called something else and what=A0 is called by= =20 this sumti might be a totally different object (or counterpart).=A0 But we = have=20 to get to the essence through the object and to the object through some=20 expression referring to it, whence the possible muddle. Building on this, & gets into a related -- but only incidentally - issue=20 about the relationship between names and things (which pc introduced in a b= ad=20 analogy to deal with the above case).=A0 Here the three items, thing, essen= ce,=20 and sense-of-sumti, come together in three theories: 1) names pick out thin= gs=20 by convention only - even if you can infer with a high degree of certainty= =20 from a name something about the named , the connection is only social (like= =20 the relation between ordinary words and ordinary thing, considered=20 extralinguistically) A name has NO sense.=A0 2) A name refer to a thing by= =20 having the essence of the thing as its sense (designation,...) (and hence i= ts=20 referent -denotation - in intensional contexts, but I don't want to get int= o=20 that) and so picks out its referent in the usual way by checking what fits= =20 the sense, but what is involved is a transcendental function, not this-worl= d=20 properties.=A0 3) The sense of a name is that of a definite description, a= =20 complex property which presumably at most one thing in the worldsatisfies.= =A0=20 1) is natural for Logical Positivists, 2) is needed for Fregeans, including= =20 Montagovians (and fits in nicely with Nyaya, except actually only for minim= a:=20 atoms, souls and the like) and 3) makes sense of most actual uses of names = of=20 things not in intensional contexts and many that are and is required by=20 Logical Atomists.=A0 These relate to the original problem in the sense that= the=20 original can be seen as taking the [sumti]-ness as the sense of [sumti] and= =20 then the objects as being the two choices of what that sense is.=A0 Or, i= t=20 can be taken, as the choice between the sense of the sumti (essence) and th= e=20 connotation (properties) of the sumti- in one sense of "connotation" (its=20 also used for denotation and for designation - not always by different=20 people). Lobab's veridical notion comes in only in the sense that connotations (to g= et=20 a shortname for them) have actually to fit if names are disguised=20 descriptions, whereas, if names designate essences, the connotations may be= =20 merely useful guides without being perfect fits (just like {lo} and {le}).= =A0=20 =20 "chicken vaisheshika," which no Indian ever was, would be the usual thing=20 except that the inhabitants of different worlds are distinct, so that what= =20 the essence picks out is not the same thing in each world, but merely a=20 different thing which is the "counterpart" in that world.=A0 This solves so= me=20 messy onltological problems at the minor cost of having bloated body counts= ,=20 and can almost solve all the problems that worlds with overlapping objects= =20 can almost solve too. Bauddha is philosophical Buddhism (usually Mahayana except where really tig= ht=20 impermanence or compoundness=A0 is the issue).=A0=20 --part1_e8.103f8b3d.27b447f4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The story so far (I apologize if I get positions misconnected to names): = xod=20
used NU sumti, Robin-the-Canuck reported that that was ungrammatical by= =20
jbofi'e, xod replied that it should be grammatical since it made sense.
Xorxes showed why it should not be grammatical - if it were then NU sum= ti=20
brivla would be ambiguous, contrary to other well-established facts.=A0= Cowan=20
added that it didn't make sense either. pc and others insisted that it = did=20
make sense and attempted to spell out some of the senses, e.g., that=A0= {ka lo=20
broda} would be just {broda} and {ka la Cmen} as near as possible to "i= s=20
called 'Cmen'" and even suggested some ways to get the form by the pars= er=20
(using the usually elidable closer {kei}).=A0 pc complicated matters by= noting=20
that there are several things that NU sumti might mean; in particular, = {ka}=20
sumti might be either of at least two associates of something referred = to by=20
the sumti, the individual concept to the thing (vishesha, what picks th= at=20
thing out in every world in which it exists - or picks out its counterp= art in=20
every world that has one - and so is not a property in any world) or th= e=20
sense of the sumti [this is clearer than  pc's original formulatio= n, which=20
was buried in logical trivia] (a set of properties associated with the = sumti=20
which allows one to pick out things to which the sumti might refer in e= ach=20
world).=A0pc's point is that these are different but that both need exp= ression=20
in Lojban and neither has one at the economical level of mere NU sumti = (not=20
that the necessarily need expression so compactly, being rarely used).= =A0 The=20
first of these critters is essential to the object it attaches to, make= it be=20
who it is; the second is incidental to the object, though perhaps essen= tial=20
to its being called what it is called - in other worlds, the same (or=20
counterpart) object might be called something else and what=A0 is calle= d by=20
this sumti might be a totally different object (or counterpart).=A0 But= we have=20
to get to the essence through the object and to the object through some= =20
expression referring to it, whence the possible muddle.
Building on this, & gets into a related -- but only incidentally - = issue=20
about the relationship between names and things (which pc introduced in= a bad=20
analogy to deal with the above case).=A0 Here the three items, thing, e= ssence,=20
and sense-of-sumti, come together in three theories: 1) names pick out = things=20
by convention only - even if you can infer with a high degree of certai= nty=20
from a name something about the named , the connection is only social (= like=20
the relation between ordinary words and ordinary thing, considered=20
extralinguistically) A name has NO sense.=A0 2) A name refer to a thing= by=20
having the essence of the thing as its sense (designation,...) (and hen= ce its=20
referent -denotation - in intensional contexts, but I don't want to get= into=20
that) and so picks out its referent in the usual way by checking what f= its=20
the sense, but what is involved is a transcendental function, not this-= world=20
properties.=A0 3) The sense of a name is that of a definite description= , a=20
complex property which presumably at most one thing in the worldsatisfi= es.=A0=20
1) is natural for Logical Positivists, 2) is needed for Fregeans, inclu= ding=20
Montagovians (and fits in nicely with Nyaya, except actually only for m= inima:=20
atoms, souls and the like) and 3) makes sense of most actual uses of na= mes of=20
things not in intensional contexts and many that are and is required by= =20
Logical Atomists.=A0 These relate to the original problem in the sense = that the=20
original can be seen as taking the [sumti]-ness as the sense of [sumti]= and=20
then the objects as being the two choices of what that sense  &nbs= p;is.=A0 Or, it=20
can be taken, as the choice between the sense of the sumti (essence) an= d the=20
connotation (properties) of the sumti- in one sense of "connotation" (i= ts=20
also used for denotation and for designation - not always by different= =20
people).
Lobab's veridical notion comes in only in the sense that connotations (= to get=20
a shortname for them) have actually to fit if names are disguised=20
descriptions, whereas, if names designate essences, the connotations ma= y be=20
merely useful guides without being perfect fits (just like {lo} and {le= }).=A0=20
=20
"chicken vaisheshika," which no Indian ever was, would be the usual thi= ng=20
except that the inhabitants of different worlds are distinct, so that w= hat=20
the essence picks out is not the same thing in each world, but merely a= =20
different thing which is the "counterpart" in that world.=A0 This solve= s some=20
messy onltological problems at the minor cost of having bloated body co= unts,=20
and can almost solve all the problems that worlds with overlapping obje= cts=20
can almost solve too.
Bauddha is philosophical Buddhism (usually Mahayana except where really= tight=20
impermanence or compoundness=A0 is the issue).=A0 --part1_e8.103f8b3d.27b447f4_boundary--