Re: [lojban] Forget XS, let's go back to XS.

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@v21.me.uk>]

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.