tu'o: we've already been there

I spent three months advocating tu'o for Kind.

The reason I gave up on it was, a, it was also coopted for Substance, 
and b, generalising it from Mr Individual to Mr Anything Else was 
acutely painful. Remember Mr xodium?

Misterhood needs to be orthogonal to ontological type. While glorking 
tu'o will do for individuals, it will not do in the general case. How 
do the XSs come up with Mr xodium? (I do not have fond memories of 
Jorge's attempts to kludge around the subject.)

Is Mr xodium {tu'o loi marjrxodiumu}? Is Mr Couple {tu'o loi re lo 
prenu} -- or in your XS, {tu'o lo re prenu}? And is this really the way 
you want to go, rather than a general LAhE?

The bpfk is supposed to decrease the kludges not increase them? For the 
thousandth time, no, that is not the bpfk's mission. The bpfk is to get 
things clarified and/or sayable that haven't been. You want elegance, 
take it to LoCCan. I should not have to keep saying this.

I popped in to the wiki, saw the equation lo = Kind, and nearly walked 
out again. No, lo != Kind. I will not accept that. I will only accept 
lo = Individual or Kind of Individual. gadri usage may be confused, but 
some parts of the gadri system are well defined, core, and central to 
the language.

LAhE mess with quantification already, and the sense of re mikce is 
already pretty damn close to that of LAhE3 re mikce: the possible 
denotation remains "all doctor pairs". LAhE3 merely suspends the 
exporting of the prenex. If you insist on doing tuples differently, 
fine, I don't really care (though I do care about Mr Substance); but I 
don't buy your counterargument.

[][][][] [][][][][][][][][][] [][][][]
Dr Nick Nicholas. [email protected] http://www.opoudjis.net
University of Melbourne: [email protected]
Chiastaxo dhe to giegnissa, i dhedhato potemu,
ma ena chieri aftumeno ecratu, chisvissemu. (I Thisia tu Avraam)