Re: xebro

[eric (Eric S. Raymond)]

Your characterization of equality as a semi-predicate argues more strongly
for a linguistic divorce between `formal identity' (which is an exact,
"computable" predicate in your terms) and the approximate `material' equality
in language (which is not).

> But I begin to think that equality figures so centrally in language
> because the most important function of language is to be predictive
> and imperative rather than descriptive; descriptive power is important
> only in the service of other purposes.  In other words, language is
> concerned with the future rather than the past; it is about predicting
> what will happen and causing things to happen.

I agree with this.  In fact, I can ground it more formally than you have;
you are asserting that language is not an empiricist construct but an
operationalist one, in the full technical meaning of those terms.  You
are close to what I understand of Heidegger's concept of `zuhandinen',
this idea of language and thought as a kit of tools which one is
constantly in the process of rearranging.

>                                               Now talk of the
> future is necessarily approximate and speculative, so it's okay
> to use "is", which has the same properties, in that kind of framework
> for most purposes.

In fact, I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise.  If talk
of the future is necessary speculative, semantic hygiene is *more* important,
not less --- it is *more* important that `predictive' equality be marked as
a semi-predicate, a slippery thing.
-- 
      Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com  (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)