From lojbab Thu Nov 17 15:14:29 1994 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411172014.AA09850@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:14:10 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411170340.AA00721@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 16, 94 08:10:17 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: 845 Status: RO la xorxes. cusku di'e > The status quo seems to be neither of them, but: > > (c) it is impossible, and the x2 is a {le ka...}, where the > meaning is x1 looks for something (not quantified, thus > possibly an opaque reference) that has property x2. > > There is no place for the looked for object. > > I could understand this if it never made sense to have an object > being looked for, but it does make sense, so I don't see the need > to forbid this simple expression. Quantifier error! It is false that "it never makes sense", right enough. However, it is also false that "it does [always] make sense". In fact, it sometimes makes sense and sometimes not. Having places which only sometimes make sense is to be avoided. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.