"Existence" is the name of the following sentence: "An existent
is either a physical entity, or a physical characteristic, or a
Which is rather an odd axiom as
it is false, since the word "existence" already has a different English
meaning. But even if we allow that this defines a new, technical, usage
of the word, this is rather a weak axiom, because it says nothing about
the world, only about one word meaning. Notice that this does not
actually use that second quoted sentence, only mentions it. So your
axiom only names the sentence, it does not claim it to be true. Is that
really what the mKR is supposed to be saying?
No. In mKR, the sentence is claimed to be true, and it is optionally named.
If named, it is defining a [possibly new] usage of the name.
According to your description, that means the correct English must be
"Existence" is the name of the following sentence.
An existent is either a physical entity, or a physical characteristic, or a physical proposition.
My intent was to have "precedence" determine the parsing of the sentence.
[Which is exactly what happens in mKR.]
That is, you would interpret the sentence as if these parentheses had been used.
Existence is the name of (An existent is ... ).
Is this use of parentheses correct English?
My intent would have been more obvious if I had "pretty printed" the sentence.
Existence is the name of
An existent is ...
My dream is to change English grammar to allow
Existence :: An existent is ...
Perhaps we could agree to use this "augmented English grammar" in Ontolog Forum?