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 m0r1JUU-00006yC; Sat, 29 Oct 94 21:31 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5518; Sat, 29 Oct 94 21:31:14 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5514; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 21:31:13 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9014; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:28:11 +0100 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 15:28:27 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: any, opaque, transparent, xe'e... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 952 Lines: 21 Thank you Chris!!! Excellent explanation of what opaque means. > I have a suspicion that the *ideal* logical solution to all this, if we were > starting from scratch, is to eliminate words like nitcu, djica, and claxu > from the lexicon, and find a way of communicating those concepts that is > explicitly marked as negative. Or allow those words to only accept events, like was done for {djica} and {sisku}, but not yet for {nitcu}, {claxu}, {kalte} and maybe some others. I don't think that is the best solution, though. > But I don't think that's very practical at > this point. Realistically I think we have to use either Lojbab's or Jorge's > marking schemes, or forbid opaque references altogether, using other > mechanisms like "mi tanxe nictu" to get the point across. What is it that you are calling Lojbab's scheme? Use of {tu'a}, or use of {lo tanxe} for these predicates with a different meaning than for most other predicates? Jorge