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

[Rob Speer <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:22:31PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion. I wrote that, Jorge didn't. I'll let him speak 
> > for himself, but my current understanding is that XS lo can be used in 
> > intensional contexts, but is not limited to them.
> 
> That's correct. I don't see the point of a gadri that could be used
> only in "intensional contexts", i.e. for the x2 of djica, nitcu, sisku, 
> perhaps claxu. The predicates themselves create the intensional context,
> there is no need, in my opinion, for a gadri to redundantly emphasize it. 
> All that is required is to use a constant term there and not a quantified
> one. (A quantified term is still permitted, but it gives the usually
> unwanted meaning.)

Ah! In that case, there's nothing wrong with XS. I put my support behind it
again.

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_.
--
Rob Speer