WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers

posts: 1912


pc:
> Reference is to particulars.

OK, but what counts as a particular is left to
ontology. No need for us to dictate what is or what
is not a thing. And I certainly don't want things to
be fixed once for any and all contexts.

> Now, if you want
> generality, you have two choices — one not
> officially available in Lojban. You can use
> quantifiers — and whichever one you pick will
> generate the problems mentioned above

I don't use quantifiers for unquantified terms.

> — or you
> can use some modal notion like "generally" or
> "usually" or "typically."

Which need not always be made explicit. Context can
determine whether you are speaking in general terms
or not.

> Lojban doesn't have
> those but clearly needs them.

{ta'e} and {na'o} would seem to be for something of
that sort. But I agree this area needs more clarification,
if not necessarily more words.

> As modal notions
> they do take one out of the real world into
> idealized ones of some sort — but then, in that
> world, {lo rozgu} picks out some roses, all of
> which or some of which are or are not red and on
> that hinges the truth about {lo rozgu}. I note
> in passing that your second definition of {lo}
> makes it not only particular roses but specific
> ones, "the obvious ones in the context" (assuming
> that {zo'e} is meaningful and a referring
> expression in a definition context).

The obvious ones in some context might be roses in general.

> Your first
> definition (otherwise generally better) contains
> the unexplained "generic reference," for which I
> cannot find a plausible interpretation still
> after all these years (quantifiers or reference
> to a genus or species having both been rejected).

Maybe your ontology is too restrictive.

> The basic problem is that a claim, to be
> meaningful, has to have some way of verifying it,
> at least in principle.

Is that a claim? If so, how do I verify it?

> How would you verify {lo rozgu cu xunre}?

In what context?

> If nom particular roses are
> relevant then it seems impossible to do, if some
> are then the question is how many of them are
> needed to show the claim true (or how are they
> distributed, which is an only slightly more
> complex case). You can say that quantifiers
> don't count, but in the real world they almost
> always do.

When quantifiers are important, they should be made
explicit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com