From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 30 16:56:44 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 30 May 2004 16:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BUaAO-0000g2-Om for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 30 May 2004 16:56:36 -0700 Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 16:56:36 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS. Message-ID: <20040530235636.GY818@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu> <20040530192759.GR818@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040530202245.GD21769@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040530202245.GD21769@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 8013 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 04:22:45PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 12:27:59PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > 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. > > Why shouldn't it be here? Sure, I'm putting it on the Wiki now after > seeing a bit of support for it, but why shouldn't I propose it on the > main list first before codifying it? Everyone on the BPFK/Wiki lists > is on the main list. That's simply not true, sorry. If you really want, I'll diff for the list of people for whom that's not the case, but I'd rather if you took my word for it. > Also, posting on the main list goes along with my general intent, > which is that the gadri discussion should be accessible to normal > people, including those not following the BPFK's every move. Not when we're nowhere near consensus. All that does is make it look like we're trying to break the languaue. > > Secondly, that doesn't, in any way, resemble what xorxes' proposal > > is. > > You mean, aside from xorxes re-stating his proposal as exactly the > words "{lo} is defined as the intensional article", and the numerous > things he has said in its defense that amount to "{lo} already means > everything you want it to mean"? I refuse to read the disussion with PC, so you're going to have to quote specifics. However, note that "{lo} is defined as the intensional article" could very easily mean lo *without* *quantifiers* is defined as the intensional article, which is exactly what I said. Furthermore, I don't give a flying fig what he says in the disussions; only the proposal itself counts. -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