WikiDiscuss

A: Phooey!. The Books description of {lo} has nothing to do with intensionality and indeed the idea of an intensional gadri barely makes sense: it could not be used in transparent context and would be unnecessary in opaque one. What {lo} seems to be used all to often to shoot for is that wondrously vague sense of English plurals, "the" generic expressions and the like, which are closer to {lo'e} than anything else presently in the language: that is they talk about the members of a class but without an specific number being relevant — one is usually too few, all is usually more than is strictly required, and within that not all count equally for the claim. This is not intensional but just a different way of looking at a class, by weight, as it were, rather than by number. It is also different from thinking about the class itselr as a node in the conceptual tree — closer to {lo'i} but again more somewhat isolated from the members (though {lo'i} may work jhere — my proposal just
leaves the answer to that for later and meanwhile gets on with business). To be sure, the difference between a set and the property that defines its are sometimes said to be the differnce between extension and intension, but that is a different distinction by that name from the corresponding talk about contexts (though there may be some deep or remote connection).

B: Well, we ought to find some way of expreessing generic usage, but that it be {lo} is at least controversial. that {lo} has been misused (against the Book) in this way in the past hardly justifies continuing to do it.
John E Clifford wrote:

>1. After going to meetings and reading list for 30 years, I can assure =
that — whatever they say publicaly — every person who has spent enough =
time on Loglan or Lojban to feel up to talking about it has something the=
y want to change. Some many things or broad changes, some details, almos=
t everyone additions.
>=20
>2: There have been no shortage of alternatives proposed, just none that =
got the right sort of support behind it (I think I have made three and & =
at least two others — but those cancel eachother out, of course joke).=
The problems with {le} (which is a non-starter) and {loi} (which does =
one small part of the work in some contexts) is that they, like {lo}, alr=
eady have clear uses prescribed. I think that too many people have thoug=
ht that Lojban was set in concrete or that no proposal would be accepted =
(because there were those in power who held that nothing may change — a =
holdover from Loglan, where it was often true, unless you could convice J=
CB that he thought of it, which did happen occasionally). So the slogged=
on with makeshifts rather than getting together a good case: examples, c=
lear explanation why nothing currently works, clear explanation of how th=
e proposed extension works, estimates of cost and advantage and so on. Th=
at is a lot of work for one person to do and
> loCCan has not been very good at creating committees that actually do t=
hings (what gets done gets done by one person doing it). My comment was =
an attempt to shortcut the process slightly: after fifty years of carping=
it is clear that there are something which we want to say but which all =
are attempts to say in current language have ended in failure. Let's jus=
t create ways to say them and get on with it. If we do figure out how to=
say them without all the additions (and once they get said a lot that is=
a real possibility) then we can drop the additons and retrofit the text =
corpus.
>

A: This isn't a bad description of where we are now. Intensionality is=20
essential, and the Book's definition of lo is a close approximation of=20
that, but unfortunately also conflated it with the extensional "da poi", =

resulting in a contradiction. Most usage of lo is intensional. Other=20
attempts at intension used bizarre stunts like lo jai ka, appropriations =

of other cmavo such as lo'e, or evasions like le. And the (only) other=20
sense of the old lo is easily expressed using su'o!

B:e conclusion is clear. lo must go from usually being intensional to=20
being always intensional.

We will not hammer out all the oddities of intensionality here on this=20
list before the BF must vote. The BF commissioners should vote yes=20
because this plan improves clarity and consistency, and because it's=20
better than the status quo or anything that will be sketched up before=20
the vote. But regardless of the BF's decision I will continue to apply=20
the XS in my usage as I have been. If this is a fork or schism, so be it.=

--=20
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assa=
ssination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim M=
onday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing =
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."=20