WikiDiscuss

pc:
> --- Jorge Llambías wrote:
> > I think {lo pavyseljirna} usually does have a
> > referent,
> > and so for example {lo pavyseljirna cu se
> > ranmi} is true.
>
> This is one of the ungoing paradoxes — if the
> sentence is true, then {lo pavyseljirna} has no
> referent and so the sentence is not true, whether
> false or meaningless.

For me, from the sentence being true it doesn't follow
that {lo pavyseljyrna} has no referent, so no paradox
arises. In other words, I don't take {no da se ranmi}
as true by definition. To be is to be the value of a
variable, not necessarily the same as to exist in the
actual world.

> The only consistent way I
> know to handle it in the present context is to
> say (reasonably, though messily) that {1ranmi} is
> an intensional context, taking us to an alternate
> situation in which there are unicorns.

I used {2ranmi}, the subject of the myth. Myths can
have both real and unreal subjects.

> I wonder if {ki'a}
> is appropriate here — thi is less confusion --
> or even inability to determine a referent — and
> more just saying somehting that appears wrong.
> The correct reponse seems to me to be "But there
> aren't any unicorns" or whatever.

It will depend on the context. They may be using
the word in a manner I'm not familiar with, so what
appears like nonsense to me may be perfectly meaningful
to them. Depending on the context, it may be more
reasonable to assume that they are confused (in which
case {na'i} would be more appropriate) or that I am
the one confused, in which case {ki'a} is better.

> Which kind of built in meaningless do you favor?
> If, for example, if one component of a
> disjunction is meaningless and the other true, is
> the whole true or meaningless (and corresponding
> things for other connectives)

If someone says what appears to be "[stuff] and
[nonsense]", I will take it that they are claiming
both the stuff and the nonsense. The default assumption
would be that they meant something by what I take to be
nonsense, so its meaning would be +definite -specific
for me, using Cowan's terminology. The truth value
of true and unknown is unknown, false and unknown is false,
true or unknown is true, and false or unknown is unknown.

> > I guess "the underlying logic of Lojban" is
> > something
> > accessible to you but not to me, so it is
> > pointless to argue
> > that point.
>
> It seems to be quite out in the open; it is
> singular logic. Reference is a function (part of
> the general conditions for singluar logic --
> maybe definitional) and therefore (this is
> definitional) each referring expression can have
> only one referent (with variations about whether
> it can have none).

We are obviously working under different definitions.

> > > > > I didn't realize that I had said that
> > {lo'i
> > > > > broda} had a different referent from {da
> > poi
> > > > > selcmi be lo broda} (I assume that this
> > has a
> > > > > built in namely-rider so that it has a
> > > > referent
> > > > > at all), only different from {lo selcmi
> > be lo
> > > > > broda}, unless you are identifying them
> > as
> > > > well,
> > > > > which seems against something you said
> > > > elsewhere,
> > > > > presumably on another topic altogether.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what you mean. What I said was:
> > > >
> > > > > > The bit you were presenting until
> > recently,
> > > > > > where {lo'i broda}
> > > > > > and {lo pa selcmi be lo broda} have
> > > > different
> > > > > > referents, is
> > > > > > not something I would want.
> > > >
> > > And I repeat, where did I say that as opposed
> > to
> > > saying that {lo'i broda} and {lo selcmi be lo
> > > broda} have different referents? I can't
> > find it.
> >
> > You may be reading {lo pa selcmi} as {da poi
> > selcmi}, that's
> > the only explanation I can think of to explain
> > this exchange.
>
> I'm not but I never denied the equation which
> *you* offered and charged me with denying. Have
> I missed something here?

It appears to me that you have:

xorxes: I don't want {lo'i broda} and {lo pa selcmi
be lo broda} to have different referents,
which is what you propose.

pc: I never said {lo'i broda} and {da poi selcmi be lo
broda} are different, only that {lo'i broda} and
{lo selcmi be lo broda} are different.

xorxes: Huh?

pc: Where did I say that as opposed to saying that
{lo'i broda} and {lo selcmi be lo broda} have
different referents?

xorxes: Are you reading my {lo pa selcmi} as {da poi selcmi}?

pc: I'm not but I never denied the equation which
*you* offered and charged me with denying. Have
I missed something here?

xorxes: Yes. I never charged you with denying the equation
that you charge me with charging you with denying.

> > Anyway, how's this:
> >
> > (1) mi cuxna fi ko'a goi lo'i karda
> > I choose from a set of cards.
> >
> > (2) mi cuxna fi ko'e goi lo selcmi be lo karda
> > I choose from a set of cards.
> > (Ontologically different one from
> > before, even if in the end it consists of
> > the same cards.)
> >
> > (3) ko'a na du ko'e
> >
> > Therefore:
> >
> > (4) mi cuxna fi su'o re da
> > I choose from at least two sets.
> >
> > I disagree with (3), of course, so for me (4)
> > does not follow from (1)
> > and (2).
>
> Well, I would of course say that 2 is a bad
> translation and is presumably false in the
> present context. I agree that 4 does not follow
> and I do hold that 3 is true.
> I do not know how {da poi selcmi be lo broda}
> snuck into this, so drop all that.

(I never mentioned {da poi selcmi be lo broda}.)

If you disagree with (3), what would be a correct use
of {lo pa selcmi be lo broda}?

More generally, if a thing and the singleton group
of that thing count as two things, and given that
they share most properties, can we conclude that if
something does something, then at least two things
do it?

(a) ko'a goi lo'i ro broda cu selcmi ro lo ro broda
(b) ko'e goi lo pa selcmi be ro lo ro broda cu selcmi
ro lo ro broda
(c) ko'a na du ko'e
Therefore:
(d) su'o re da selcmi ro lo ro broda

At least two things are the set of all broda?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com