From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199411042202.AA01062@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Cowan weighs in #2: needing a box
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:02:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1331
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov  4 17:03:03 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

It seems to me that the Lojbab and Jorge systems are not irreconcilable.
There is no dispute that

1)	mi nitcu da poi tanxe
	I need something which is-a-box.

is transparent and that

2)	mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da poi tanxe
	I need the event-of (I possess something which is-a-box).

is opaque, for these appear in prenex form as:

3)	da poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
	There-exists-an X which is-a-box such-that I need X.

and

4)	mi nitcu le nu da poi tanxe
		zo'u mi ponse da
	I need the event-of (there-exists-an X which is-a-box
		such-that I possess X).

Now, Example 2 can be changed to:

5)	mi nitcu tu'a da poi tanxe

with loss of information, for "tu'a <sumti>" means "le su'u <sumti> co'e",
in other words "the predication I have in mind of <sumti> doing/being
something obvious from context".

So Example 1 and Example 5 are terse ways of saying the transparent and
opaque senses of "I need a box" respectively.  (You can think of "dapoi"
as a quasi-article here.)

If "lo" turns out to be a synonym (modulo non-existence) for "da poi",
as many believe but pc does not, then

6)	mi nitcu lo tanxe

will be transparent per Jorge, and

7)	mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe

will be opaque.  But this question is not yet settled; see my #1.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.