RXS: Rob's version of XS
1. I still don't understand what the sense of "intensional" is in which there can be an intensional gadri: I know about intensional contexts and intesional objects and intensional definitions, but this one escapes me. Also, {lo} is by every definition I know of inspecific — do you mean particular? And I think the best thing to say about the generic {lo} — which I gather is what is being shor for here — is that quantifiers are irrelevant to it — it ranges betwen none and all but at no requir4ed place in there (and mere numbers as opposed to weights don't seettle cases anyhow).
2. This negation transparency holds in general, but is logically shakey because, while numbers do not strictly matter, they are really there behind it all. However, I would not feel at all uncomfortable (I think the odds are very low of problems) because of the vagueness of the claim from a numeric point of view.
wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
Re: RXS: Rob's version of XS
1."lo is defined to be the unspecified article. When used, it could
be intensional or extensional, specific or general. Its default
quantifiers are unspecified."
Is this in any way different from XS lo? If you think it is, I would like
to see a sentence that means one thing with XS-lo and a different
thing with RXS-lo.
The thing I have doubts about is "Its default quantifiers are
unspecified." Does that mean that the sentence with lo will
always have a quantifier, but you have to glork what it is?
If that's the case, then there's a difference fom XS-lo, which
2.simply does not have a quantifier. Not having a quantifier means
for example that {lo broda na brode} is always equivalent to
{naku lo broda cu brode}: "brodas don't brode" = "it is not the
case that brodas brode", which obviously fails if lo has a hidden
quantifier that you have to glork.
mu'o mi'e xorxes