On Tuesday, November 22= , 1994 4:03:33 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wrote:

la lojbab cu= sku di'e
> Of course there is nothing strange about a brivla relating = two objects - a
> seeker and the thing known-and-sought-after, and ha= ving a certain predicate
> relating them. The problem that I se= e is that there is more than one such
> predicate, and the choice is = dependent on the specificity (or is that
> definiteness %^) of = x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the desire is of the
> seeker for = the final state after finding.
The problem is transparency vs opacity= . Transparent references can be
specific or nonspecific, and that can be= marked with the appropriate
quantifiers, but we don't have any way to m= ark explicitly opaque references.
The other properties that you menti= on, like desires of the seeker for what
to do after (or rather if) the s= ought after thing is found, are not really
to the point. If you want a p= lace for them I guess you do need a lujvo.
Also, in English, the mean= ing of "seek an object" has been generalized
to "seek knowledge", where = by "finding it", we mean that we get to
know the truth value of some utt= erance. (I suppose that's what you call the
seeking of science.) I don't= have a problem with letting this metaphorical
extension into Lojban, bu= t in any case this is not part of the opaque problem.
An interesting = property of sisku as it is defined now, is that the lambda
variable of i= ts property really never takes a value. Normally, the lambda
variable of= a property corresponds to one or more of the places of the
selbri (for = example for {zmadu}, it's the x1 and x2) but for sisku, there
is no plac= e for the thing being sought, so there is no place that fits the
lambda = variable.
> WE have other cases in Lojban where the Lojban word co= vers a misleading
> subset of the English meanings of the keywords ("= old" and "know" being two
> cases that come to mind).
BTW, beca= use of my mail problems a month or so ago I never found out whether
{cit= no} means "young", so that it only refers to living things, or whether
i= t is more general. Would an "old car" in lojban be a {tolcitno karce} ora {tolcnino karce}?
> In all such casesa we have learned to live = with the
> fact that the English word is tto broad and have come up w= ith lujvo for the
> alternative meanings. Such lujvo can always= exist, and if this whole
> issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away.= the number of distinctions we need
to
> make may be reduced= . But I remain unconvinced of this - as pc said a while
> back = in this discussion - there are some predicates that embody a hidden
>= abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this
<= p>What do you mean by "some predicates"? English verbs, like "want", "need"= ,
"look for", etc, or Lojban predicates like {djica}, {nitcu}, {sisku}, = etc.?
I totally agree that the English verbs can accept opaque refere= nces as direct
objects, without any marking. They also, in other context= s, can take transparent
direct objects.
Because of the logical asp= ect of Lojban, this can't work like that in Lojban,
and so the arguments= are always transparent.
But, the fact is that the opaque meaning is = often very useful for these
predicates, so what do we do?
I propos= e to find one solution for all such predicates, rather than patches
for = each of them. {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been
d= ealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still acceptsobjects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place was<= br>directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible<= br>entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a propert= y
of said thing.
Why not treat them all the same?
The transp= arent case:
{mi djica lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box wanted by me"
= {mi nitcu lo tanxe} =3D "There is a box needed by me"
{mi sisku lo tanxe= } =3D "There is a box sought by me"
and the opaque case:
{mi dj= ica xe'e lo tanxe} =3D "I want a box (I don't care which)"
{mi nitcu xe'= e lo tanxe} =3D "I need a box (I don't care which)"
{mi sisku xe'e lo ta= nxe} =3D "I seek a box (I don't care which)"
(I don't mind using {lo'= e} instead of {xe'e lo}, I think it makes sense
as well.)
As thing= s stand now, for the transparent case I have to say:
{da poi tanxe zo= 'u mi djica tu'a da}
{mi nitcu lo tanxe}
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi sisku = le ka du da}
Why so complicated?
> &nbs= p;mi'e la lojbab noi sisku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u nabmi
&g= t; &n= bsp; cu mansa roda
That doesn't make much sense to me. = You probably mean {noi sisku lo ka danfu
le me zo sisku me'u nabmi gi'e = mansa roda}, otherwise you are saying that
you are looking for something= with property an answer satisfies everyone,
but what is it that you loo= k for? the answer, everyone? I think this is an
unnecessarily complicate= d way to deal with {sisku}.
Jorge