Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r7b6Y-00006eC; Wed, 16 Nov 94 05:32 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0678; Wed, 16 Nov 94 05:32:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0674; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:32:28 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8520; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:29:10 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:30:55 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1332 Lines: 39 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