WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> 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.

OK. So you allow at least some members of the
outer domain into the range of variables. That
works, too. But it would be a good idea towarn
people of it, since it is not the presumed
situation.

> > 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.

Sorry, autopilot. This argument usually starts
with {xanri} and I went there automatically. OK,
so {2 ranmi} is intensional, if we don't have the
outer domain in the range.

> > 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.

Thanx. This is a classic supervaluation or
Lukasiewicz three-valued logic, depending on
whether you want a third truth value or the
possibility of a claim having no truth value.

>
> > > 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.

That is a useful hypothesis. What is your
definition — or at least a characterization that
covers these cases?

> > > > > > 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?
>
>
As I said, I have no idea how that came about.
Brain fart seems to weak an explanation.

But back to the original point, whether {lo'i
broda} has the same referent as {lo selcmi be lo
broda}, consider
{pa lo'i broda} refers to a set containing
exactly one broda, a member of {lo'i broda} in
fact, or to that one broda itself.
{pa lo selcmi be lo bbroda} refers to one set of
broda, which set may be of any size.
Similarly,
{lo'i pa broda} is a set containing exactly one
broda,
{lo pa selcmi be lo broda} is a single set of
broda, which set may be of any size.
There may be circumstances where the two
expressions refer to the same thing or at least
where bridi involving their interchange come to
the same result, but it does not appear to be the
general situation and is certainly not
guaranteed.