xu'a (hoo-ha?)

[Pycyn@aol.com]

Cowan:  
<<pc> With the xu'a approach, this sort can take place
> without odd readings of names and as part of a general rule about 
intensional
> operators, which we will need anyhow.

I don't think this works in general.   Consider the following statements:

    The _Arabian Nights_ was translated by Sir Richard Francis Burton.
    Scheherezade told a story about a genie and a fisherman.
    The genie threatened to kill the fisherman.

If the first sentence is true in the real world (it is), and the second
sentence demands xu'a, what does the third sentence demand? xu'axu'a?
No one simple trick will work for all cases.>>

Well, xu'a was suggested when the context may not be enough.  Surely this is 
not such a
case here -- although Scheherezade is not explicitly put into the book in the 
second
sentence.

cowan:
<<pc> > That is the point of xu'a, to remind us that we are in some 
intensional
> > context like "Greek myths say."   We do treat such sentences as true 
> and ones
> > like "Pegasus is a unicorn" as false without the warning, so, in a logical
> > language, we need the warning, either contextually or explicitly.
>
>I grasp that now, but I think that we need full semantic world-setting, 
>not just
>a syntactic marker.  Ray Smullyan's skeptic, after all, believes that the 
>mental
>states he is experiencing now (while awake) are the same in kind as those he
>experiences while dreaming, merely at a different level --- he would not be
>surprised to "wake up" from this current life.>>

xu'a is just meant to prevent quantifying and substituting into intensional 
contexts, not to
be explicit about  exactly what intensional context is involved, since that 
is often
unnecessary.  I think we have ways to be quit explicit -- and in wordy detail 
-- when
needed.  As for Ray -- good Taoist that he is when needs be -- intensional 
and real worlds
are relative to where you are: this world right now is real and the dream is 
intensional,
should he awake, the situation will be reversed where he then is (assuming 
butterflies --
or maybe Zwangzi -- have intensional states). 

lojbab
<<If we need full semantic world-setting, we should have it in the form of 
sei metalinguistic parentheticals.  If there is an advantage to something 
like xu'a (which is not clear) it would be for brevity.  At which point we 
might find that one of the evidentials or attitudinals will suffice.  ka'u 
or se'o, perhaps, may already be providing the role of xu'a.>>

ka'u looks pretty good: it involves "know" and cultural sources, probably 
just what the
short form requires.  Se'o seems more restricted, but might fit in cases 
where one is not
appealing to general culture but to personal mythos (is that possible?).  But 
in those
cases, the Gricean rules would usually require being explicit in the first 
place.

pc