Conjunction
Saul Epstein 
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 11:47:16 -0600

From: Rob Zook <rzook*informix,com>
Date: Saturday, January 10, 1998 3:54 PM

> At 11:08 AM 1/10/98 -0600, Saul wrote:
>
> >I guess I should ask you to explain to me the difference between
> >universal affirmation and set reference.
> 
> The logic primer I've used says it a little clearer on universal
> affirmation than I can:
> 
>     "The _quality_ of a categorical proposition indicates the
nature 
> of the relationship it affirms between its subject and predicate
terms: 
> it is an *affirmative* proposition if it states that the class 
> designated by its subject term is included, in whole or in part, in
the 
> class designated by its predicate term, and it is a *negative* 
> proposition if it wholly or partially excludes members of the
subject 
> class from the predicate class. The predicate term is distributed
in 
> every negative proposition but undistributed in all affirmative 
> propositions. 

So, "Spock is a Vulcan," is an affirmative proposition,

	Predicate(Vulcan) includes Subject(Spock)

while "Kirk is not a Vulcan," is negative,

	Predicate(Vulcan) not-includes Subject(Kirk)

>     "The _quantity_ of a categorical proposition, on the other
hand, 
> is a measure of the degree to which the relationship between its 
> subject and predicate terms holds: it is a *universal* proposition
if 
> the asserted inclusion or exclusion holds for every member of the
> class designated by its subject term, and it is a *particular* 
> proposition if it merely asserts that the relationship holds for
one 
> or more members of the subject class. Thus, the subject term is 
> distributed in all universal propositions but undistributed in
every 
> particular propositions."

So my examples above are both universal, in that the class designated
by the subject has in each case only one member which is univerally
included in the class designated by the predicate.

I guess my problem is that these are the quality and quantity of the
proposition, and you're marking the proposition's terms.

> I'm also not sure what you mean by a set reference. But the
universal
> affirmation operator then "distributes" the subject term, but not
> the predicate term.

I just mean a reference to a set. "All Vulcans" and "some Vulcans"
and "no Vulcans," all refer to the set "Vulcans." The different
references can describe different relationships between sets. "Some"
makes an intersection, I've forgotten the names for the others -- any
set people out there?

> >> Well, that's qualification, not classification. I see those as
two 
> >> distinctly different mental events. In qualification you
associate
> >> some quality with a class. In classification, you assert some
> >> actual entity is a member of a class.
> >
> >I guess. How do you associate some quality with an actual entity,
> >then?
> 
> Actually entities do not possess qualities, only their
abstractions.

Then there are no entities.

> If I were to say, "Whorf is a linguistics genius", that amounts to
> the affirmation that all members of the catagory "Whorf" possess
the
> quality of "linguistic genius". Since what I call Worf, is not the
> actual entity, but my personal conception of him. 
> 
> That being the class of all experiences I associate with the actual
> entity. An abstraction of all the sensory impressions and secondary

> facts I know about the actually entity. For the _only_ experience I

> ever have of the actual entity, consists of the abstracted sensory
> events, and secondary facts filtered thru the Whorf class.
> 
> So in one sense, it amounts to the same thing, but in another it
> never happens.

Ha. So in the first sense it's worth noting once and remembering but
also moving on as if it were the same thing, while in the second the
world dissolves. Interesting choice.

> >I haven't mentioned it, that's true. It is, however, the way
"entity
> >words" are used in the source documents.
> 
> Hmm.,that could be, but I did not know how to inteprete them in
that
> way until you mentioned the possibility.
> 
> >Yes. These would be necessary anyway. Basically, we need the
> >indicative or demonstrative correspondents of these. Then for
when,
> >there for where, therefore for wherefore (why), and that for what.
We
> >have he/she, whose interrogative is who. Then we just need a way
to
> >mark the indicative forms as interrogatives. The <qa> particle is
a
> >sentence-level marker, while these would be word-level.
> 
> I would not say that's quite accurate, from what Prof. Zvelebil put
> in his "more on Vulcan" message:
> 
> a) Qa Apock-ash qa Kirk-ash, "Is it Spock or Kirk?" liter.
> "Interrog. -Spock-or interrog. - Kirk -or".
> 
> Which I would gloss as "Is it true for Spock?, or is it true for
Kirk?"
>
> e) Is it Vucaln blood?" = Qa W~l'q'n'at plak.
>    "It is the precious green Vulcan blood. "= A: 
> 
> Although he uses it for sentences too. I would call it a
proposition
> level interrogative.

Uh, these are also sentences, though. I just meant that <qa> doesn't
act as a particular focus of inquiry, like "what" and its ilk, but
stands as a notification that inquiry is taking place, exactly like a
spoken question mark.

> >> When I posted my piece on logical connectives, I finished by
saying
> >> I would post more on prepositional connectives. You replied you
> >> wondered what I meant by "prepositional connectives". I could
not 
> >> think of a good way of describing them at the time, other than
they 
> >> would seperate prepositions. 
> >
> >I've forgotten. Do you mean "propositions" and "propositional?"
> >Because if so I think I know what you mean.
> 
> Yes.

Well, it's good to get _that_ cleared up...

> >Yeah, we're going to need a different word. I know and, or, etc.
are
> >called "logical operators," but the rest of these are logical too.
> >Overwhelmingly so. So to call them non-logical is..,non-logical.
;-,
> 
> I don't mind calling them something else, but I'll be damned if I
> can think of what else we can call them :-)
> 
> Maybe go back to "proposition connectives"?

I'll have to think about what it is we're trying to name...

--
from Saul Epstein
www,johnco,cc,ks,us/~sepstein
"Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi
suraketca'."
							-- K'dvarin Urswhl'at