WikiDiscuss

> Not exactly disagreeing, just asking for more

> justification.

Boy. That would have to be quite a lengthy post. I think I should probably make sure I understand what you're expressing before undertaking such an endeavor...!

> events, utterances, intentions, and so on). The

> variety is more to allow the distinctions to be

> made (as they cannot be easily in English,

> say)than to force them to be made.

I agree that, if people find certain semantics to be useful, such constructs should not be excluded from the Lojban language... but only to the extent that such semantics don't entail the immigration of semantic warts from the source language into Lojban. IMHO, Lojban needs to be (and, in fact, is) picky about meaning in order to retain its status as a {logji bangu}. Rejecting {baukemnorlogji}, I think, is one of its pursuant responsibilities.

If you can find an example in which a non-abstract {xamgu1} or {xamgu2} makes sense, I will reconsider my position. But I've never (that I can recall) seen one, and none come immediately to mind.

je'u pe'i tu'a lo pavyseljirna cu xamgu tu'a loi lisri

.ini'ibo lo pavyseljirna cu zasti fi tu'a lo menli

> places ({nitcu2}, say). The latter involves

> using transparent places with intensional object

> mentioned in place of opaque places with

> extensional objects. It has a double advantage:

I don't understand your use of the words opaque and transparent. In what sense do you mean them?

> I don't have a "preview" button and, if I did, it

It's part of the form... right next to the "post" button. (I refer, in particular, to inclusion of ">" at random places in quoted lines.)