From a.rosta@v21.me.uk Sun May 30 15:29:51 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@v21.me.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 5784 invoked from network); 30 May 2004 22:29:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 May 2004 22:29:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk) (62.41.128.20) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 May 2004 22:29:50 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([217.140.36.139]) by heineken.flexi-surf.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i4UMCLQ27863 for ; Sun, 30 May 2004 23:12:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c44695$973c4f40$543a0751@oemcomputer> To: References: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu> Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 23:28:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 62.41.128.20 From: "And Rosta" Subject: Re: [lojban] Forget XS, let's go back to XS. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=175222075 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22466 Rob: > There was a point where I thought I understood XS, and why it wouldn't > break anything anywhere. Judging from what xorxes is claiming about XS > in the thread between him and pycyn, it's past that now. [...] > Then, all we need is a different intensional article. I'll call it {lo'e} > for now, especially since I don't see why {lo'e} doesn't work. [...] > So, basically, I'm re-proposing what I thought was XS. Any comments? I don't have time to participate (which gives you licence to ignore this), but I urge you to hear xorxes out. XS was a zillion times better than any other scheme ever mooted (at least up until the end of 2003 when I tuned out), and it really did make everything sayable while making virtually no undoing of anything baselined. I am here referring to the old XS as documented by me & xorxes -- by the sounds of things (this exchange between pc & xorxes must be taking place in a forum I'm not reading) things may have moved on, though I doubt xorxes has modified XS, since it was so clean & simple. You must realize that if XS had had any logical/semantic flaw I'd not have supported it. If you think you see problems with XS, try asking xorxes "How does XS say [such-and-such]" -- see if you can break it, while giving xorxes the chance to make sure you're using it correctly. Sorry I can't be involved, but it gives me a shudder to think that the gadri debates might be happening all over again, given the existence now of XS and of xorxes as its exegete. Best wishes to everybody, --And.