WikiDiscuss

---

> xorxes:
> > --- And:
> > > The relevant change concerns what the outer quantifier
> > > quantifies over; at the time that I tuned out, we seemed
> > > to be in agreement that (i) there was a significant distinction
> > > between quantifying over instances of a kind and quantifying
> > > over subkinds of a kind, (ii) PA + gadri constructions
> > > ought probably to be underspecified with regard to the
> > > distinction,
> >
> > Yes, and that remains so.
>
> Surely not, since PA + gadri in xorlo involves quantification
> over the referents of the gadri. (The similarity is that
> in xorlo the referents of the gadri may be subkinds or
> instances of a kind — the distinction, if relevant, to be
> glorked. Correct me if I err.)

That's correct. So in effect {PA lo broda} has the same
uses either way.

> Jumping the gun, I note for the record that if LAhE are equivalent
> to {lo broda be} then they aren't a solution, since the {lo}
> reintroduces the ambiguity that the LAhE is supposed to eliminate.

I think {lo klesi be} disambiguates one way (or eventually it
shows there is a possible third reading, and then an infinite
series).

> > We have the two readings for the instance
> > case, and two readings for the subkind case: there is a certain kind
> > of doctor such that I need that kind of doctor vs. I need any kind
> > of doctor.
>
> In the scheme we called XS, that would have been {su'o -subkind lo
> mikce} versus {lo su'o -subkind lo mikce}.

Yes, and now {su'o klesi be lo mikce} versus {lo klesi be lo mikce}.

> Anyway, I agree that the subkind/instance distinction is orthogonal
> to "any" readings of intensional sumti-places, since you & me (at
> least) are of the view that "any" readings don't involve quantification
> (when not given a propositionalist paraphrase). But it's not orthogonal
> to pixra-type intensionals.

I think the same possibilities exist for pixra:
a) A picture of a doctor (Dr Smith)
b) A picture of a doctor (no one in particular)
c) A picture of a doctor (a cardiologist)
d) A picture of a doctor (no speciality in particular)

> But the ambiguity of "We ate the same meal" hinges on the subkind/instance
> contrast but is not intensional.

Yes, this is a better example to separate the two issues.

> > > > Mr Exister in the RW has to exist in the RW, that's in fact all
> > > > it needs to do.
> > >
> > > In that case, we must understand different things by "Mr X".
> >
> > Have you abandoned the myopic singularizer view?
>
> I don't think Mr X comes into existence through myopic singularization,
> but I do think that Mr X becomes manifest in the world through myopic
> singularization.

OK. Where we disagree is that I don't want manifestation in the
world as a grammatical category. We can say of {lo broda} that
it mafifests itself in the world, or that it doesn't, or say
nothing about that point (it may be irrelevant).

> > You now seem to be
> > giving Mr X a more independent existence from that of its instances.
> > I think Mr X is just its instances, in a similar way that John is
> > his time slices, for example. Does John not exist in the world where
> > his time slices exist?
>
> Yes, but Mr X exists (abstractly, in the noosphere) even when it has
> no instances. Mr Unicorn, Mr AIDS Cure, and so forth. Mr X's
> manifestation in the world is its instances, though, just as you say.

"Exists" as in "can be included in the universe of discourse",
"is a possible value for a variable", yes. "Exists" in the sense
"is manifest in the physical world", not necessarily (it may
or may not be). So I don't think we disagree on that.

> In my ontology, this is, of course. I'm not asking anybody else
> to swallow it.

I enjoy ruminating different ontologies.

> > > For certain sorts of
> > > intensional readings of quantified sumti in intensional sumti
> > > places, quantification would be over subkinds. For extensional
> > > readings, quantification would be over instances.
> >
> > I think the two issues are separate. The suggested way of dealing
> > with intensional cases is by not forcing obligatory reference to
> > each instance separately.
>
> Can you explain, with an example? I don't follow you.

All I meant is that you can make reference to Mr Broda without
making reference to its eventual instances of manifestation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250