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 m0qnc2y-00005XC; Thu, 22 Sep 94 03:30 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0106; Thu, 22 Sep 94 03:28:33 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0103; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 03:28:33 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5520; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 02:27:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 20:30:37 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: any X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1012 Lines: 34 I think we are converging! > JL>= "I need this box", makes perfect sense. And so does {mi djica le vi tanxe} > > Does it? The (1) or (2) dichotomy above [that was (1) {mi nitcu lo tanxe} can have opaque/transparent meaning according to context. (2) It's always transparent (or always opaque, but I think no one argued for always opaque.) ] > suggests that there is always a > sumti raising going on, and we are allowing the raising when there is no > scope problem, and not otherwise. Since I don't fully understand when sumti raising is acceptable and when it isn't, I may or may not agree with that. > That is, I think, different than the way > we have dealt with other raising questions (not necessarily wrong, but we > really oughta know what we are dealing with). Yes. I think {djica} and {nitcu} should be treated alike. (And also {sisku}, which for some reason is treated differently, and maybe {cpedu}, and who knows how many more.) > > lojbab > Jorge