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 m0r25VF-00005YC; Tue, 1 Nov 94 00:47 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9670; Tue, 01 Nov 94 00:47:12 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9669; Tue, 1 Nov 1994 00:47:07 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9407; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 23:43:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 16:35:10 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: any, opaque, transparent, xe'e... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199410291909.PAA17455@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Chris Bogart on Sat, 29 Oct 1994 12:46:18 -0600) Content-Length: 1145 Lines: 24 >Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 12:46:18 -0600 >From: Chris Bogart >A transparent reference is a linguistic reference to something; an opaque >reference is what *appears* to be a reference, but it doesn't *in fact* >reference any particular thing. It's *kind of* like an uninstantiated variable. >"I need that red box" is transparent, because, in context, there is some red >box that the speaker and listener both know is being referred to specifically. >"I need a red box" (in its usual interpretation) is opaque, because "a red >box" doesn't refer to any particular box, really it describes the kind of >need I have. We've been using "any" as shorthand for this situation, but >that's not perfectly correct: consider this spooky Hallowe'en dialog: Hey, I think I'm starting to understand this opaque/transparent thing now! But it sounds (as someone already said) that "I need a red box" therefore means "I need the *existence* of red box (possibly of other qualities), and probably that said box be accessible by me." So isn't that something like "mi nitcu lei nu [da] xunre tanxe"? ~mark