Message-Id: <199411192221.AA29390@nfs1.digex.net> From: Gerald Koenig Date: Sat Nov 19 17:21:24 1994 Subject: Re: Cowan's sum:opaque Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 19 17:21:24 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu lojbab said: We can solve the "look for object" problem most simply by just creating a lujvo for this meaning. studji or stujundji or faktoi all could be appropriate, perhaps with slightly different place structures according to the Nick formulary. lojbab -------------- After reading the above I was hit by a brainstorm which I share. Suppose we had a language shift cmavo similar to, for example, the Greek lerfu shift, "ge'o", which would shift the following expression prior to its terminator into the language of first order predicate logic. But predications about predications, i.e, all kinds of complex sumti, would be illegal then as expressing second order predicate logic. It would force all following sumpti to be objects. Example: mi cu sisku *ge'x* le mi cukta *[ge'z]* ge'x initiates the shift to 1st order predicate calculus and ge'z terminates it. Again, pardon my ungrammatical temp words. My last ones seem already extinct so I'm not too worried about it. In effect the x2 of sisku would be redefined for the scope of ge'x as an object. That would go a long way toward making it transparent. This is a more general solution than creating new lujvo on a case by case basis. It would give a choice on sumpti places that do not take objects but could, and make definite those where a choice is offered. djer