From lojbab Tue Nov 15 10:13:48 1994 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411151507.AA19730@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:07:29 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411121252.AA16634@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Nov 12, 94 12:49:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 976 Status: RO la xorxes. cusku di'e > > I don't know about "seek", but "look for" doesn't have to involve an > > abstraction. "I am looking for my book" is perfectly transparent, and > > I don't see why {sisku} can't be used for it. The point is that "sisku" doesn't mean "seek/look for", but rather "seek/look for something with a specified property". The reason for doing this is that seeking very frequently involves something that is -specific but where we do not wish to commit ourselves with a +existent locution. The degenerate case "I'm looking for my book (+specific)" becomes "I'm looking for something with the property of being my book", i.e. mi sisku le ka du le mi cukta mi sisku tu'a le mi cukta However, if we say "I'm looking for an English translation of Jorge de Montemayor's >Diana<", the "le ka" formulation saves us from error even if there is no such translation. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.