WikiDiscuss

pc:
> Well, in CLL at least (and matchingly in the real
> world) every description, whether explicitly
> quantified or not involves at least one
> quantifier.

In CLL, yes. CLL does not allow constant terms (in theory),
every term according to CLL is quantified, even names. That is
the important difference between the proposed definitions and CLL.
(I don't understand what you mean by "and matchingly
in the real world". Reference, description, quantification
are all theoretical constructs.)

> Roses are indeed things, particular concrete
> things, that we want to say general things about.

Yes. And sometimes we may want to say particular things
about them too. For example:

- Tell me something about roses.
- Roses? My grandmother loved them. She used to buy
them from the flowershop at the corner.

> You seem to want some other kind of roses
> altogether, general roses about which we say
> particular things, e.g., that they are red.

Roses in general are not general roses, whatever these
are. So no, I don't want to speak of any particular
kind of roses when I speak of roses in general.

> I would see that claim as one about ordinary
> roses in a not well worked out, but fairly well
> understood, modality: "generally." The not well
> worked out part has to do with how many roses we
> have to examine to determine whether the claim is
> true (not that it will be a fixed number — and
> distribution will count as well).

Do you propose that as a general strategy for {lo broda},
or as an explanation of English generics that we can't
replicate in Lojban?

> > "Roses are red" in English does not just mean
> > that
> > there are red roses.
> >
> Well, it means very different things in different
> contexts, but the broad outline is something
> along the line that a plurality of rose (or, more
> likely, a plurality of rose cultivar) blossoms
> are in the red line (red, pink, orange, yellow,
> whites off in these directions). So we whip out
> our Jackson & Perkins or the Rosarian registry
> and check. Sometimes, of course, the English
> sentence just means that some roses are — in
> response to a clueless person who believes that
> roses come only in colors other than red.
> Sometimes it means (a case that Lojban can
> handle) that the typicla (or even stereotypical)
> rose is red. And so on. Lojban would presumably
> like to have different means of exressing each of
> these different claims. To be sure, it probably
> also wants one that is not so determinate, and
> maybe {lo rozgu cu xunre} is that — but that
> doesn't mean that it does not have rules for
> figuring out whether it is true or not (the first
> part of the rule may well be to divide its
> various senses if it is ambiguous or look toward
> precising if it is vague). But {lo rozgu cu
> xunre} is not limited to taht use; it does
> perfectly well as the beginning of a story about
> a totally particular event — a date, say.

It certainly does. It all depends on the context.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail