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 m0r8hCi-00005XC; Sat, 19 Nov 94 06:15 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7647; Sat, 19 Nov 94 06:15:26 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7644; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 06:15:25 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7620; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 05:11:50 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:03:40 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 865 Lines: 22 > > Here I would use {lo'e}: > > > > mi sisku lo'e xe fanva be la'o sy Diana sy bei la gliban > > > > > > {lo'e broda} doesn't claim that {lo broda} exists, does it? > > I don't know that that has been settled. But I find the idea of an > archetype of a non-existent (in the appropriate universe of discourse) thing > rather problematic. What could be predicated of this {lo'e xe fanva}, other > than what we say in the embedded place structures? Lots of things. It can be looked for, needed, wanted, etc. Any predicate that makes sense with an opaque reference. Another problem of not making the x2 of sisku the object of the search is that it makes it very difficult to single out the looked for thing. For example, in a game of hide-and-seek, there is {le sisku}, and what I'd like to call {le se sisku}, but I can't with sisku as it is now. Jorge