Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 14:45:11 -0400
Message-ID: <20040530184511.GA21387@mit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: Rob Speer <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: rspeer@MIT.EDU
Subject: [lojban] Forget XS, let's go back to XS.
Content-Length: 1639
Lines: 50

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.

It seems that there are three problems that need to be solved:
1. Nobody knows what the hell {lo} means, especially not the writers who have
   used it.
2. Lojban has no intensional article.
3. No existing article makes sense in front of {du'u} or {ka}, or in many
   situations, {nu}.

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."

Discussion is showing that people are finding the second part hard to swallow.
I know I am.

As I heard XS explained to me last week, it was this:

  "{lo} is an unspecified article."

This means that {lo} could be intensional or extensional, specific or general,
whatever makes sense in context.

This easily solves 1 and 3, and deals halfway with 2. It also has the advantage
of not invalidating any usage at all.

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.

Then, you can use {lo'e} when you specifically want an intensional article,
{su'o} when you specifically want the old {lo}, and {lo} when it really doesn't
matter.

This can even be clarified with quantifiers and stuff, so that {lo ci gerku}
and {mu lo vo cilre} still work the nice way.

So, basically, I'm re-proposing what I thought was XS. Any comments? 

-- 
Rob Speer