WikiDiscuss

John E Clifford wrote:

>1. {ro} makes a lot of sense in normative discourse, where casuistry is=
available to deal with the hard cases, but won't do in descriptive disco=
urse, where exceptions are not allowed (officially — but look at raw no=
tes in real science). So {ro} is not a general solution for generics.
> =20
>

If ro is insufficient, then so'a will have to do. Everything else is=20
handwaving.

>2: And here is the problem. Lacking casuistry (or at least without clea=
r notions of how to apply it) {ro} won't do here. A goodly number of lio=
ns never hunt for food at night (it's easier to see it in the daylight an=
d there is plenty around) and all of them take time off occasionally, so =
the exceptions are not peculiar enough for dodging an "all" (unlike the c=
ow with the amputation who doesn't count against "all cows have four legs=
") The pointabout trating the various {lo}s differently may be right: ce=
rtainly the meal could be {su'o cidja} (in the scope of two {lo}s), but s=
omeone might argue that nights and lions are on a par here. The objectio=
n to {so'a} at this point is that it continues the suggestion that these =
things are about how many critters do something, rather than being loose =
talk about critterkind — compare {lo'e} at least. (Notice that I am not =
recommending {lo} for this usage but talking about it in a context where =
{lo} seems best uderstood in this way.)
> =20
>

I reject the attempt to make general (all/most) claims but then slither=20
out of responsibility. If your definitional concepts don't apply to most =

of the targets, your definition needs fixing, but the gadri shouldn't=20
help you make such dishonest claims. If most cows no longer have 4 legs, =

revise your definition of "cow".

You see, making claims about the general cow is different from treating=20
cows intensionally. "Sam fears cows"; this is a claim about Sam. "Cows=20
have 4 legs" is a claim about cows. Claims about something are=20
extensional: we validate them by looping over instances and testing the=20
assertion. Intensional claims escape this, because they don't actually=20
make claims about the thing at hand. This is why Sam can fear cows in a=20
cow-less universe. Cows can appear and disappear, but the statement=20
holds invariantly true!

Perhaps we can test in/extensionality by asking: does the statement hold =

true if all X were to vanish? I would very much need doctors after all=20
doctors are slaughtered, but lions wouldn't eat at night or day if they=20
were all killed.

Have I now succeeded in ripping non-specific away from intensionality?=20
mi viska lo ractu is non-specific but hardly intensional by the above tes=
t.

--=20
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=
ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=
onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20