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 m0qnxmc-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 02:42 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7121; Fri, 23 Sep 94 02:41:07 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7117; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 02:41:06 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6202; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 01:39:49 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 15:52:26 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: general response on needing books X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 739 Lines: 13 >Maybe my definitions are not very good, but they mainly say that {nitcu} >and {djica} are forms of {claxu} with more properties for x1. >Does {claxu} suffer from illicit raising as well? I think claxu has the same capacity for the transparent/opaque problem that nitcu does. But one could go further with your definitions and define "claxu" as "na ponse" or something similar, and (re my previous posting) we *have* a solution to the transparent/opaque distinction in the case of negatives (at least when "da" is used: mi na ponse da vs. da na se ponse mi) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~