From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sun May 30 14:25:15 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 30 May 2004 14:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BUXlv-0006Wl-L6 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 30 May 2004 14:24:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20040530212231.89193.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.43.74.32] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 30 May 2004 14:22:31 PDT Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS. To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <40BA4ABF.1030400@thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8007 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list xod: > Rob: > >You mean, aside from xorxes re-stating his proposal as exactly the words > "{lo} > >is defined as the intensional article", > > Sorry for the confusion. I wrote that, Jorge didn't. I'll let him speak > for himself, but my current understanding is that XS lo can be used in > intensional contexts, but is not limited to them. That's correct. I don't see the point of a gadri that could be used only in "intensional contexts", i.e. for the x2 of djica, nitcu, sisku, perhaps claxu. The predicates themselves create the intensional context, there is no need, in my opinion, for a gadri to redundantly emphasize it. All that is required is to use a constant term there and not a quantified one. (A quantified term is still permitted, but it gives the usually unwanted meaning.) mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/