Message-Id: <199411232035.AA04945@nfs2.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed Nov 23 15:35:19 1994
Subject:      Re: solutions to sumti opacity
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Tue, 22 Nov 94 17:58:10 EST.)
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 23 15:35:19 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Jorge:
> > SUMMARY
> > (1) viska & other perception gismu often don't mean what we want them
> > to. The solution is to use lujvo with a new siho-type place for the
> > mental representation of the percept.
>
> I think we could use the opaque markers for this too.
>
>         ko'a viska lo'e gerku

This means koha saw the generic dog, & probably (I don't know how
the scope of the genericity is decided) means that if X is a typical
dog then koha saw X. It makes sense, but is not the desired meaning.

> > (2) the x2 of djica, nitcu, troci & other intentional gismu should be
> > of siho-type.
>
> I don't like that at all. I prefer to be able to want and need objects
> rather than ideas. (And I like being able to say "this is needed", "this
> is wanted", without circumlocutions.)

We've been through this before. If you want/need objects, then there's
implicit sumti raising, & the x2 will have to be transparent. I suggest
that you content yourself with lujvo from djica, nitcu etc., with
transparent x2, & if you want an opaque reference, use djica/nitcu
with siho-type x2.

As I recall, you felt that djica and nitcu entailed claxu, so
you could try "claxu zei djica/nitcu" for the lujvo you crave.

> > (3) a siho-type sumti can alternate with lu..lihu. "lo siho" involves
> > the speaker's description of x1's thoughts, while "lu...lihu" is a
> > "verbatim" representation of the x1's thoughts, or is a representation
> > of how the x1 might have described x1's thoughts.
>
> Just use {la'e} in front of {lu} and it works for me:
>
>         do djica la'e lu mi ponse le cukta li'u
>
> Otherwise, what you want is the sentence "mi ponse le cukta".

But we don't want the referent, either, do we? Or can we say that
the referent of an utterance can be a thought? If so, then yes to
"lahe".

---
And