Re: [WikiDiscuss] Re: BPFK gismu Section: Parenthetical Remarks in Brivla Definition

On 9/27/06, John E. Clifford <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for what a
> sentence means that has a non-referring referring expression in it
> means, you can handle it either way for simple sentences (Fa): they
> are either false or meaningless (they are false on the standard
> definitions -- except that the definitions are not quite standard) or
> they are meaningless. In the latter case you then have all sorts of
> options about very complex znd compound sentences. In the former
> there are no problems (which is why I tend to stick with it).

OK, to each his own, I guess. No sense arguing about preferences.

> Of course, generally virtually all words are referring expressions,
> you mean only those that refer to individuals, like sumti, not to
> classes (or properties), like brivla.

I do mean just sumti, yes. But then I also think we use sumti to refer
to classes and properties: {lo klesi}, {lo se ckaji}, {lo ka ce'u broda},
etc.

> But notice that your claim that
> every referring expression has a referent means that every predicate
> has a non-null extension{da broda} is eqivalent to {da me lo broda)
> and {da du lo broda}.

Not every predicate need have a non-null extension in a given model.
If {da broda} is in the model, then {broda} does have a non-null
extension in the model, but if {da broda} is not in the model, then
{broda} does not have a non-null extension there.

> So, in the end you mean all content words refer
> if they get used at all.

I would say all content words have a potential to refer. The model
under construction could always be expanded so that they refer. But we
can always reject the proposed expansion too, that's the function (or
one of the functions) of {na'i}.


> I don't remember anything about types for several rounds nor about
> generics at all, I certainly haven't seen any need for them and you
> have neither shown a need for them nor shown how they would help (nor,
> of course, what the Hell they are).

Do you remember the subsumption tree you introduced for events?
If you can generalize that idea to other objects besides events, I think
you can get the gist of what I mean.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/