From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 30 12:28:07 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 30 May 2004 12:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BUVyR-0004YC-FP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 30 May 2004 12:27:59 -0700 Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 12:27:59 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS. Message-ID: <20040530192759.GR818@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 8001 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:45:11PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > And XS right now is trying to solve all of them in one fell swoop. As > I understand it, it's saying: > > "{lo} is defined as the intensional article, and it already means > everything you want it to mean." First of all, this shouldn't be here, it should be on the BPFK/Wiki lists. Secondly, that doesn't, in any way, resemble what xorxes' proposal is. xorxes' proposal is to remove default quantifiers and to say that lo, without quantifiers, is intensional. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi