Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA06268
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Fri, 18 Nov 1994 23:15:57 -0500
Message-Id: <199411190415.AA06268@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2951; Fri, 18 Nov 94 22:51:15 EST
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0207; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:01:56 -0500
Date:         Fri, 18 Nov 1994 20:03:40 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 18 23:16:00 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

> > 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