From pycyn@aol.com Sun Aug 12 17:45:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 00:45:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 24888 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 00:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 00:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 00:45:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.f.18c9c100 (2613) for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:45:05 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] cenba To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f.18c9c100.28a87d11_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f.18c9c100.28a87d11_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/2001 5:18:30 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Do we really approve of this type of ambiguity? In the first case, > {le mi creka} refers to a particular object, which changes in some > property. In 2, what seems to change is what the referent of > {le mi creka} is. In 1, {cenba} describes a relationship between > an object and an event. In 2, unless I'm misunderstunding something, > it would be a relationship between the words, it says that > the words of x1 change referent in consonance with the change of > When you put it that way, it sounds fishy. But I don't see that you have to put it that way: the first might be a metaphysical statement ("You can't step into the same river twice" kind of thing), the second may be about a magic shirt. So that is not the difference at hand. Nor is it general/specific since the first could be taken either way. {cenba} and the like are always tricky, of course, because the referent is never the same, by the nature of the case. Can we come up with a case that does not involve such concepts or explain what happens in these concepts (whether or not it is somehow related to questions)? [It is unfortunate that this discussion moved over into Lojban at this point -- or slightly before -- since it then became close to impossible to carry on without presupposing one or the other answer to the issue at hand, and thus neither resolving the issue nor making a genuinely meaningful discussion of it.] --part1_f.18c9c100.28a87d11_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/12/2001 5:18:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


Do we really approve of this type of ambiguity? In the first case,
{le mi creka} refers to a particular object, which changes in some
property. In 2, what seems to change is what the referent of
{le mi creka} is. In 1, {cenba} describes a relationship between
an object and an event. In 2, unless I'm misunderstunding something,
it would be a relationship between the words, it says that
the words of x1 change referent in consonance with the change of
referent of the words of x2. Is that acceptable?


When you put it that way, it sounds fishy.  But I don't see that you have to
put it that way: the first might be a metaphysical statement ("You can't step
into the same river twice" kind of thing), the second may be about a magic
shirt.  So that is not the difference at hand.  Nor is it general/specific
since the first could be taken either way.
{cenba} and the like are always tricky, of course, because the referent is
never the same, by the nature of the case.  Can we come up with a case that
does not involve such concepts or explain what happens in these concepts
(whether or not it is somehow related to questions)?

[It is unfortunate that this discussion moved over into Lojban at this point
-- or slightly before -- since it then became close to impossible to carry on
without presupposing one or the other answer to the issue at hand, and thus
neither resolving the issue nor making a genuinely meaningful discussion of
it.] --part1_f.18c9c100.28a87d11_boundary--