Re: Conjunction Rob Zook Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:29:12 -0600 At 11:47 AM 1/11/98 -0600, Saul Epstein wrote: >From: Rob Zook >Date: Saturday, January 10, 1998 3:54 PM >I guess my problem is that these are the quality and quantity of the >proposition, and you're marking the proposition's terms. Yeah, you're right. I'm not sure how to clear this up, though. I guess if we leave the quality and quantity out of things, then we can simply leave dii- as "all members of a set/class", and cii- as "a member of class". So that cee- replaces the coupla "is" in expressions involving a catagorical/class term. Now I suppose one could think of a class as a set. In colloqual use, one might even use them interchangible. However, I mean class in it's sense of "a group whose members have certain attibutes in common; a catagory". So, I think of set by the more general mathematical definition of, "a collection of distinct elements". In the mathematical set, the members do not _necessarily_ have any similarity to one another. A set would seem more abstract than my intent, in "Spock is a Vulcan". >> 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." Yes, and No. In my usage (in distinguishing collogual, logical and mathematical), I mean a class not a set, because when I say, "Spock is a Vulcan". I'm not only asserting he's a member of the set which includes all Vulcans, but also that he therefore possesses qualities which all Vulcans have in common. Perhaps, it would be better to always gloss as "Spock is a member of the class 'Vulcan'". >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? Actually, "some", in the context of sets, would refer to a sub-set, within a set. Some, but not all members. An intersection, refers to a set of elements which two or more sets have in common. While a union would be a set consisting of all elements in two or more sets. >> Actually entities do not possess qualities, only their >abstractions. > >Then there are no entities. I don't understand, how that follows. I was trying to make a distinction between words for things, and das ding an sich. An entity is a word, which describes something at the most abstract level possible. And so it represents an abstraction we have created of some thing. A purely mental abstraction. >> 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. How does the world dissolve? I never saw that before, excepting the time, my dentist gave me some sodium pentathol before extracting my wisdom teeth. Great stuf, sodium pentathol. >> 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 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. Well, example a) demonstrates what I'm getting at. I assumed that when you set it was a sentence interogative that one would use it only once per sentance. Where as in example a), Prof. Zvelebil uses it in each of the propositions in a disjunction. Rob Z. -------------------------------------------------------- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx