Re: Conjunction Saul Epstein Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:22:09 -0600 From: Rob Zook Date: Sunday, January 11, 1998 1:29 PM > 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. Oh! That I didn't know. I mean, how often does anyone bother to define a set of things that have nothing in common? Could be all the time, actually. I had a string of worthless math teachers early on and never recovered. > A set would seem more abstract than my intent, in "Spock is a > Vulcan". Well, you can probably read "class" for each of my uses of "set" then. > >> 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. Right. Which I was assuming was implied. What else would the set of Vulcans consist of but entities possessing the qualities of Vulcans? > 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. That's what I meant. ("different relationships _between sets_") So "Some Vulcans are male" notes an intersection of the set "Vulcans" and the set "Male things." > >> 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. What I meant to suggest was this question. What is a thing with no qualities? It isn't. The names of entities are words. Words are entities, and therefore their own names. I'm not using entity to mean the idea or the name of something. We have other words for that. In other words, all words are entities, and therfore some entities are words. But, just because entities all have names, doesn't mean all entities are words. And in any case, while it's important to recognize the mental and abstract nature of all this, there doesn't seem to BE anything else to work with, which makes "mental abstraction" an indistinct characterization. > >> 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. All of which makes the distinction between some supposedly more concrete Whorf and the "abstract" Whorf of experience useless. Important, yes, vital even. But useless. > >> 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. Let's hope he didn't ask you any personal questions... > >> 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. And hence my clarification that I meant acts a question mark, not as a question. -- from Saul Epstein liberty*uit,net www,johnco,cc,ks,us/~sepstein "Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi suraketca'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at