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 m0r5vxe-00005bC; Fri, 11 Nov 94 15:24 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1482; Fri, 11 Nov 94 15:24:20 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1477; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 15:24:19 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0918; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 14:21:06 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 13:10:53 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1022 Lines: 22 cu'u la djan. kau,n. > After some voice conversations with pc and lojbab, I think there is a fairly > clearcut resolution for the problems that have been agitating the List since > August, or whenever. The short version is: most of Jorge's points are > well-taken, and his views are for the most part sound; however, his actual > proposal ("xe'e") doesn't seem to be necessary. I'm happy with {tu'a} as an acceptable solution myself, but I think Jorge found it unacceptably vague, and wanted {xe'e} to mean something more specific. However, I was never quite sure what it *was* intended to mean. (And of course, Jorge will no doubt speak for himself. :) > Some, like > "seek", always involve an abstraction; others, like "need" may sometimes > involve an object rather than an abstraction: you may simply need that > there >be< an X, rather than needing to >do< something with X. I reckon "that there >be< an X" is an abstraction. On the other hand, I agree that it is possible to need an object. co'o mi'e .i,n.