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 m0qq8oY-00005JC; Thu, 29 Sep 94 01:53 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2925; Thu, 29 Sep 94 01:53:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2922; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 01:53:41 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6330; Thu, 29 Sep 1994 00:50:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 16:59:59 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Transparence / Opaqueness X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1409 Lines: 35 la kris cusku di'e > Is that really true? Aren't both interpretations possible of "ko cpacu le > tanxe"? It could mean "go get me a box (any box)" or "go get me a box > (whose location I'm about to reveal...)" It depends on how {ko} is defined. If {ko cpacu lo tanxe} means "make {do cpacu lo tanxe} true", then you don't get to choose which box, because the sentence will be true whichever box {do} chooses to get. If imperatives are defined some other way, then I agree that the opaque/transparent distinction might make sense for them too. > Is it OK to allow the implied transparent "zo'e" to sit there in > the x2 place when we're trying to be opaque? Or can the "obvious > value" of zo'e happen to be "ne'e"? What's {ne'e}? I thought it was undefined, and it is the actual cmavo I had in mind for {xe'e}. > >Of course, if someone comes > >asking me {do xanto kalte ma}, I wouldn't know what to respond. > > I think that's OK, even though opaque and transparent don't occur together > in English. > > mi xanto kalte I'm hunting elephants! > .i go'i ma? Which one(s) in particular? > .i go'i ne'e None in particular. > OR > .i go'i la dambos. I'm hunting elephants, specifically Dumbo > .i .o'onai do palci Oooh, you're evil! If you replace {ne'e} with {xe'eda}, I think I agree. Jorge