[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la nitcion cusku di'e
> The onus may still be on me to prove that a fully
> extensionalist system will work; but a fully intensionalist system, I
> repeat, is not Lojban as it is defined, *no matter what usage has
> done*.
Unless you show how the fully extensionalist system would work,
the answer would seem to be that we should provide both options.
Certainly not intensional-only.
The proposal in question leaves the explicitly quantified
expressions equivalent to the current prescription, i.e. fully
extensional. If someone wanted to restrict their usage to be
fully extensional, all they would have to do is use {su'o broda}
instead of {lo broda}.
The extensional meaning remains available with {su'o broda}.
The intensional meaning is useful (needed even) and has been used.
The change does not invalidate previous usage.
>(I reiterate, to Jorge's use of my own usage against me, that on
> this issue, usage doesn't count for anything with me, the gadri system
> being so alien from English to begin with, and so poorly documented and
> understood.)
I wasn't actually looking for your usage in particular when I found
the example, but rather some such usage in the published la lojban mo.
It was just a bonus that it was from you.
> And extensionalism is not a trivial detail of the
> definition of Lojban, but its cornerstone.
For some people, yes. Therefore, it should remain a full
feature of the language, and so it does in this proposal
where quantifiers retain their extensional meaning.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com