Message-Id: <199411262043.AA14942@nfs2.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Sat Nov 26 15:43:17 1994
Subject:      Re: diversity
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 23 Nov 94 15:42:55 EST.)
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 26 15:43:17 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

Jorge to Djer:
> What I don't like about your proposal is that the meaning of the selbri
> is somehow changed by the sumti that fill the places. There are already
> many predicates that accept either objects or events, without special
> marking. Why should djica &Co be an exception?
>
> If the answer is because they are often used with opaque references, then
> why not mark the opaque references as such, instead of forbidding all
> object references? Isn't that throwing the baby with the bathwater or
> something?

I suspect that opaque references arise from some element in the meaning
of djica & co. It is better to make the definition & sumti structure
of djica & co accurately reflect its true meaning (such that it may
give rise to opacity) rather than leave the definition & sumti structure
confused & patch it up by an opacity marker.

(I am in favour of a kind of opacity marker that means "the following
sumti can't be exported to the prenex out of the abstraction containing
the bridi the sumti is sumti of".)

If this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it is justified
in that the baby is as defective as the bathwater - in fact the problem
is with the baby more than with the bathwater. (Where baby = definition
& sumti structure of djica et al, & bathwater = opacity problem.)

----
And