From rspeer@MIT.EDU Mon May 31 10:13:48 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 31 May 2004 10:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu ([18.7.21.83])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24)
	(Exim 4.32)
	id 1BUqM0-00076U-3x
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 31 May 2004 10:13:40 -0700
Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82])
	by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i4VHDcSR021348
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 31 May 2004 13:13:38 -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 i4VHDc75006943
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 31 May 2004 13:13:38 -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 i4VHDbRg005077
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 31 May 2004 13:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rob by torg.mit.edu with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BUqMJ-0007Cn-00
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Mon, 31 May 2004 13:13:59 -0400
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:13:59 -0400
From: Rob Speer <rspeer@MIT.EDU>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Forget XS, let's go back to XS.
Message-ID: <20040531171359.GA27672@mit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040531161936.GB27251@mit.edu> <20040531162947.64786.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040531162947.64786.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
X-archive-position: 8024
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 Mon, May 31, 2004 at 09:29:47AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > 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_.
> 
> There's no mention of Mr Rabbit in the proposed definition.

I know. The definition is fine. If I had just read the definition carefully and
not paid any attention to the discussion, I would never have thought there was
anything wrong with XS lo.

-- 
Rob Speer