Quine vs Montague, the deathmatch

I have made an emotional response, and I have dismayed both reformists. 
I do not retract my response, however.

I feel I cannot, because there are certain traits of Lojban design that 
I hold to be definitional to the language, and therefore non-negotiable 
--- and held throughout the preceding round of this debate. An 
extensionalist understanding of {lo} as {da poi} is one such 
definition. I accept that Quine is old fashioned, and Montague is more 
in tune with natural language gadri (when Monty makes sense); and that 
in a real sense the intension is more basic than the extension. I also 
accept that Bob, when he fumbles for a reason to reject {lo} = {da 
poi}, is probably thinking intensions without realising it. I further 
accept that my past usage, and that of everyone else, pretty much, as 
treated intensions as {lo} without realising it, and that making {lo} 
intensional would make all that past usage legitimate, bring Lojban in 
line with natlangs, and make it easier to learn.

And it would no longer be Lojban as I understand. Which (to embarrass 
him into saying something about it :-1/2 ) is the Woldemarian 
extensionalism of CLL.

This is not a minor and welcome fix, as I believe a cmene fix would be. 
This is a reversal of any understanding we have of Lojban; it annuls 
its basic semantic underpinnings. Our usage may not be affected; but 
our understanding of the theory of Lojban is tipped over. And I cannot 
accept it.

Is this because I have a personal stake in having my own solution 
prevail? Perhaps, although my solution is yet to be articulated --- and 
if I continue to feel as I do now, may never. Am I letting my personal 
feelings exacerbate this? Probably: I've been defending And and Jorge's 
right to speak, apparently expecting in return a deference I have not 
proven I deserve.

But I do not recant the fact that Lojban has certain axioms; not 
everything is negotiable. I count extensionalism as such an axiom, and 
though I am reluctant to use my veto in general, on this, I feel 
compelled to. I will not give reformists everything, and I will not 
give them this; that is more change that I can justify to myself. If 
that's irrational, so be it; but rationality is not the only criterion 
we are working with --- if it were, we would accept all optimisations 
without question. 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*. (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.) And extensionalism is not a trivial detail of the 
definition of Lojban, but its cornerstone.

------------------=================================--------------------
Dr Nick Nicholas; University of Melbourne, 
http://www.opoudjis.net
[email protected] Dept. of French & Italian 
Studies
"The Orthodox Church lead the Greek nationalist movement in the island
until 1977. Since then it has been in decline, confining itself mainly
to the real estate market and homophobia." (Andrew Apostolou, MGSA-L)