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 m0rBrTL-00007EC; Sun, 27 Nov 94 23:49 EET
Message-Id: <m0rBrTL-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5248; Sun, 27 Nov 94 23:49:41 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5246; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 23:49:40 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5922; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 22:46:14 +0100
Date:         Sun, 27 Nov 1994 16:51:43 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: solutions to sumti opacity
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 657
Lines: 16

> UC>"Gerku" doesn't involve sumti raising. "Klama" probably does, but this
> UC>never causes problems because there is no intentionality.
>
> Never?  Last weekend, mi klama lo diklo ke djacu ckana zarci having identified
> 2 propspects in the phone book.  Both turned out to be out-of-business
> and hence our klama-ing turned out to be very intentional and not very
> realizable %^) (we did find a not-so-local store).
>
> lojbab

This, of course, will be the solution that finally wins: no marking
for opaque references, and let context determine the meaning.
It is nice to know that at least in theory there is a way to be
more explicit, though.

Jorge