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 m0qnzyV-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 05:02 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8648; Fri, 23 Sep 94 05:01:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8645; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 05:01:24 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0886; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:00:03 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 22:02:18 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: Transparency / Opaqueness X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1117 Lines: 36 la veion cusku di'e > (a) I'll read two books. [any two] > (b) I'll read two books, this and that. > > ((a) is the opaque case and (b) the transparent one) Comment: Future tense is tricky for this. The truth value is timeless, and therefore to evaluate it you have the advantage of seeing all time at once. Even though (a) looks opaque, it really isn't, you just have to look in the future and see if the claim holds for two books, that are not "any" from this timeless perspective. The truly opaque "I read any two books" (tense is irrelevant) is mindboggling. > Now I'm wondering what would happen, if we said in > general that {le} is used for transparency and {lo} > for opaqueness. It doesn't work. For most predicates, the "opaque" claim is pretty useless. > I think that even generally it > might be useful to define an outer quantifier of the {le} > descriptor to include an elidable {lo ro}. It's already like that. Notice that {pa le cukta} is non-specific. You can't have a specific reference with any quantification but ro. Thus {le pa le cukta} is specific again. Jorge