xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce
I either happily never saw the subclass ideas
about {Q lo broda} or blessedly have so
completely forgotten them that even this
discussion is not reviving any memories. It
looks like a stage in the illconceived
procession toward the xorlo reading of {Q1 lo Q2
broda) and should presumably be handled in the
corresponding way: with {lo klesi be lo broda}
like {lo Q2mei be lo broda}.
One vaguel encouraging thing in the discussion
was xorxes comment that Dr. Dr. is just doctors.
This begins to sound like bunches, which Lojban
has always (though covertly) had. Metaphysical
argle bargle aside, the only problem is that
bunches will not solve the intensionality
problem. That leaves either admitting that {mi
nitcu lo mikce} is generally false — if {nitcu}
is not a special predicate — or that {nitcu2} is
an unmarked intensional context. The latter is
of course a viable alternative (it works more or
less well in English, for example) but seems less
than optimal since Lojban has always had another
solution that works better and marks intensions
across the board. There is also the fact that
{nitcu} 2 need not always be intensional, it need
not be in {mi nitcu leti mikce} (with appropriate
pointing if you insist)for example.
It is conceivable (though after how ever many
years it has been, conceiving is getting very
hard) that xorlo as it is now gradually emerging
in the expositions on the proposal given actually
solves some problem or presents some advantage
for the language. I really would like to know
what you think this might be. So far as the
present evidence goes, it is a defective fix for
a functioning system.