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 m0qSSuR-000023C; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:29 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9329; Mon, 25 Jul 94 19:28:25 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9326; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 19:28:24 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7248; Mon, 25 Jul 1994 18:27:13 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 12:20:44 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199407242056.AA25932@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Jul 24, 94 04:55:30 pm Content-Length: 1778 Lines: 41 la nitcion. pu cusku di'e > > All the > > syntax textbooks I see treat "He seems to be cold" as a raising from "It > > seems that he is cold", and if they buy a semantic deep structure, it will > > be SEEMS(COLD(he)). If we acknowledged raising here, we'd say {lenu mi > > lenku cu simlu} --- since there is no obvious difference between {xy. simlu > > lenu catra .y'y} and {.y'y simlu lenu se catra xy.} Well, um. There is a > > difference, isn't there? Actually, you want "leka" there, since x2 is said to be a property. This probably eliminates the difference, but there may still be a question of what is realis and what is irrealis -- I suspect not, since properties are neutral on this point. la xorxes. cusku di'e > Only one of focus, which could be marked in some other way. I see what you > mean now. I thought you meant things like {xy simlu le catra}, which would > be an example of what I thought was illegal sumti raising. So it is. > You've now convinced me that {simlu} should be like {fasnu}, {cumki}, etc, > but I guess there's little chance of that happening... In a sense it is so, but it's raising out of a property rather than an event. {mi simlu le ka catra} is a variant of {zi'o simlu le ka mi catra}, as it were, which matches Nick's deep structure better. > I was not talking about superfluous object places, though. I was asking > why some places allow both object and event, while other very similar ones > only allow one. I don't think any answer can be given that will cover all cases. Sometimes the significance is different; sometimes the object meaning is an extension of the event meaning; sometimes vice versa. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.