Message-Id: <m0qrAoT-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 1 Oct 1994 16:13:02 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Transparence / Opaqueness
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2463
Lines: 65

la kris cusku di'e

> >>         mi xanto kalte          I'm hunting elephants!
> >>         .i go'i ma?             Which one(s) in particular?
> >>         .i go'i ne'e            None in particular.
> >>    OR
> >>         .i go'i la dambos.      I'm hunting elephants, specifically Dumbo
> >>         .i .o'onai do palci     Oooh, you're evil!
> >
> >If you replace {ne'e} with {xe'eda}, I think I agree.
>
> I thought we were discussing using tanru *instead of* xe'e.  Anyway, try
> replacing "ne'e" with "zi'o" and tell me what you think.

Yes, it makes some sense. I wonder if we can interpret zi'o in general as
"none in particular".

> All the proposals I've read and understood here, from assuming all sumti are
> opaque, to flagging some with xe'e, reject the notion that bridi should
> describe relationships among things referred to by sumti (since sumti, in
> either scheme, no longer necessarily have referrents).

I think you are right. There is one other case of sumti without proper
referents: le'e and lo'e. I think {mi nitcu lo'e tanxe} might also be
a possible solution (and this time there is no problem with needing
two boxes).

> At least with xe'e
> the anomaly is marked, but it seems like a weird solution since xe'e only
> seems to be needed in certain limited contexts (namely, the x2 place of half
> a dozen gismu)

In those contexts is where it would be most common, but I think it can be
used more generally. In any case, we should find some solution for those
contexts.

> Specifically, I don't think the transparency/opaqueness distinction exists
> elsewhere.  I can't think what distinction the word "xe'e" could be making
> in the sentence: "xe'e lo blanu cu nelci la djan.".

Can I change it to "la djan nelci xe'e lo blanu"?

That would be "John likes anything that is blue", without asserting that
John likes everything that is blue. I know, it's weird, but again it is
very similar to {la djan nelci lo'e blanu} = "John likes the typical blue
thing". You can't conclude from that that John likes every blue thing,
either.

Maybe {lo'e} is the opaque gadri and we had it there all the time without
realizing it.

It even works for And's sofa:

        re lo'e prenu cu kakne le nu zutse le sfofa
        two (any/typical) persons can seat on the sofa.

        mi nitcu lo'e tanxe
        I need a (any/typical) box.

        mi pu'o tcidu re lo'e selcku
        I'm going to read two (any/typical) books.

Opinions?

Jorge