Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qSelj-000023C; Tue, 26 Jul 94 08:09 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6300; Tue, 26 Jul 94 08:08:12 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6296; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:08:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8912; Tue, 26 Jul 1994 07:07:20 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:41:06 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 896 Lines: 18 I'm not sure that I am following this discussion of simlu. But if I recall correctly, we left it as a raising by the same rationale as we did gasnu and zukte - it is a sort of definition of raising to attribute a specific role to the raised sumti among those related in the abstraction. In the case of gasnu/zukte, there is a claim that the raised sumti IS the agent. In the case of simlu, the relation is only an apparent one with reference to an observer/judge. Now maybe all this (equally obscure to me) discussion of lambda in abstractions might render some of the debate moot - since it also seems to be tied to singling out one of the sumti of an abstraction for special relationship. BTW, pc tentatively approves of the use of lambda to solve the 'nature of abstractions' problem, assuming that my description of the discussion has any bearing on what people actually intend. lojbab