WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

Jorge "Llamb����������������������������������" wrote:

>--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:42:53AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>>
>>
>>>{le} and {la} become constants instead of being automatically
>>>quantified as {ro le} and {ro la}.
>>>
>>>
>>What do you mean by 'constants'?
>>
>>
>
>Constants are direct references, not quantification over some set.
>
>With constants, you single out an individual (or group) and
>give a relationship in which it participates.
>
>With quantification you single out a set, and then you say
>how the members of the set are distributed with respect to
>a relationship.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong (and if I'm suffering from "when you have a
hammer everything looks like a nail" disease), but this sounds like an
intension/extension distinction. Your "constant" is referring to some
particular item(s) in extension, while your quantification talks about
"members of the set," i.e. the set they're in is what's important:
intension.

As I recall, gadri were rightly regarded as a big mess, and
intension/extension problems were one contributing factor to that. It
doesn't seem reasonable that what we all considered such a disaster
could be fixed by just a tiny change in default quantifiers and {lo} and
such.

>>>I'm not sure whether I should try to come up with something more
>>>precise but which will deviate from the traditional prescription. From
>>>my point of view it is not worth it because these cmavo should be
>>>phased out, but I will attempt it if there is a demand for it.
>>>
>>>
>>I would like to go on record as both not disliking the cmavo in question
>>and preferring that as many things be well defined as possible.
>>
Defined is good. This is Lojban. If we can't define it, we might as
well pack up and go home.

~mark