From rspeer@MIT.EDU Mon May 31 09:19:26 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 31 May 2004 09:19:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fort-point-station.mit.edu ([18.7.7.76]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.32) id 1BUpVP-00069M-Fe for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 31 May 2004 09:19:19 -0700 Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by fort-point-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i4VGJHU2012715 for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 12:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i4VGJH75004454 for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 12:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from torg.mit.edu (TORG.MIT.EDU [18.208.0.57]) ) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i4VGJFRg028555 for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 12:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rob by torg.mit.edu with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1BUpVh-00076s-00 for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 12:19:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 12:19:36 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS. Message-ID: <20040531161936.GB27251@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <40BA4ABF.1030400@thestonecutters.net> <20040530212231.89193.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040530212231.89193.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-archive-position: 8022 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rspeer@MIT.EDU Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:22:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > 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.) Ah! In that case, there's nothing wrong with XS. I put my support behind it again. I think XS is a great proposal being explained really badly. The emphasis should be on the fact that {lo} becomes the generic article. Don't say that it deals with past usage because those people were talking about Mr. Rabbit and didn't know it; say it deals with past usage because it's _generic_. -- Rob Speer