i yield

Because what I'm defending isn't even in CLL -- which assumes 
propositionalism as the only way of dealing with intensions --- and 
because I have to be politic and surrender some axioms, I think I'll 
yield.

unquantified gadri: ambiguous between intension and extension --- 
between appearing in the prenex or not
quantified: extensional
LAhE3 LE gadri: intensional

The ambiguity of {lo mikce} sucks, but I think it politically 
necessary now. Those who would (a) exoticise Lojban (hello xod) or (b) 
are semantic formalists who wish to make up for lost time and emphasise 
intensionality wheresoever it roams should use LAhE3 and LAhE4 (= lo se 
ka?) whensoever possible, and let it be known that by default their 
unquantified {lo} is extensional. But in mandating an extensional {lo} 
always, unquantified or not, I'm going by the letter of CLL and what 
I'd like to see, but not by the spirit: CLL is barely aware of 
intension outside propositionalism (and if it ever skicu, I'm sure it 
skicu fi lo), Bob didn't intend it, and I think enough people are 
wavering.

An intensional-only unquantified lo is still unacceptable to me. An 
ambiguous lo, to be disambiguated by extra stuff (quantification vs 
LAhE), however, is The Lojban Way. It breaks the presumption of 
prenexing, but I'm convinced default tu'o actually breaks usage. If I 
say {lo mikce cu cpedu lo sodva}, I sure as hell ain't talking either 
Mr Doctor or Intension of Doctor.

Note that Kind is *not* necessary the solution to intensions. Kind is 
perfectly usable in extensional contexts --- the fish and chips example 
--- and there can equally be intensional, non-existent but distinct 
entities. We may seriously see And's Kind split into LAhE3 and LAhE4, 
Mr and Intension: Uniqueness is not necessarily the same as Intension. 
That's the way John was heading in February. So the work is nowhere 
near done.

Furthermore, Jordan still has to accept this; and Jordan last I heard 
thought propositionalism was adequate. The description of the crow by 
the fox has to be the lydian stone: if Lojbanists feel you can {skicu 
fi lo} at all, as opposed to {skicu fi lo ka} or {skicu fi lo se ka}, 
then And's XS-lite can stand.

If not, then not, and we go back to extensional lo.

That's a question simple enough we can even strawpoll it on bpfk.

Responses. In particular, I ex officio charge list members who are not 
And, Jorge and xod to comment.

|||
"Assuming, for whatever reasons, that neither scholar presented the
evidence properly, then there remains a body of evidence you have not
yet destroyed because it has never been presented." --- Harold Fleming
|NickNicholas|Dept.French&ItalianStudies|UniversityOfMelbourne|Australia 
|
| [email protected] http://www.opoudjis.net 
|