From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Nov 16 00:53:45 1994
Message-Id: <199411160553.AA08143@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Wed Nov 16 00:53:45 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
Status: RO

la djan cusku di'e

> The point is that "sisku" doesn't mean "seek/look for", but rather
> "seek/look for something with a specified property".  The reason for doing
> this is that seeking very frequently involves something that is -specific
> but where we do not wish to commit ourselves with a +existent locution.

And frequently it does not. Why can't the unmarked case be left transparent?

> The degenerate case "I'm looking for my book (+specific)"

Why degenerate? I often find myself looking for things that I forgot where
I left. I don't see what is so exceptional about this circumstance.

> becomes "I'm looking
> for something with the property of being my book", i.e.
>
>         mi sisku le ka du le mi cukta

Why add this {le ka du}, when the unmarked case would naturally mean that?
Very unzipfist.

>         mi sisku tu'a le mi cukta

Which could also mean "I'm looking for something to write on my book" or
any of a million other things related to my book. It is vague

> However, if we say "I'm looking for an English translation of Jorge de
> Montemayor's >Diana<", the "le ka" formulation saves us from error even
> if there is no such translation.

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?

Jorge