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 m0r6MOn-00005bC; Sat, 12 Nov 94 19:38 EET
Message-Id: <m0r6MOn-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7091; Sat, 12 Nov 94 19:38:14 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7090; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 19:38:14 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9474; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 18:35:05 +0100
Date:         Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:40:53 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: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 499
Lines: 16

> Jorge:
> > 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.
>
> "There is a book belonging to me, and I am trying to find it."
> ----
> And

I don't understand. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Your sentence doesn't
involve opacity either.

Do you agree that I can say {mi sisku le mi cukta}, where {le mi cukta}
is not a property but an object?

Jorge