Message-Id: <m0rBjb0-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 27 Nov 1994 03:46:39 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: lo + opaque
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 10 Nov 94 10:42:54 PST.)
Content-Length: 2221
Lines: 40

I mean to point out that there seems to be consensus emerging about
opacity, and that only one new cmavo (or possibly also its counterpart,
making a pair) is on the table.
pc:
> There are at least two problems with opaque contexts (event descriptions
> and those that set up satisfaction sets at least -- are there other opaque
> cases?).  Some opaque contexts are such that we can hide the context,
> leaving only isolated sumti fragments from them -- subject raising.  The
> terms from the opaque context then appear as though they were in a
> transparent context, when they aren'tand we make incorrect inferences as a
> result. I need a box" no more than "I want a unicorn" implies that there
> is one to be wanted or needed.  For this problem we have _tu'a_ which
> marks raised subjects and so says "Ordinary inference rules do not apply
> here" (BTW, translating _da_poi_ as "there exists a", as if _zaste_ were
> involved sometimes at least complicates the problem.) OTOH we can
> sometimes make references from within these contexts that we mean to apply
> outside as well: "any", "a certain" (as a leaper quantifier), sometimes
> names, sometimes indexed descriptions.  We could use to have a flag for
> these as well.  I _think_ that this is Xorxes' _xe'e_, though, since it
> was presented in very different terms from what has now developed, I am
> not sure.  If I am right, the "Pick any card would be
> _ko_cuxna_xe'e_ro_karda_ and "I need that box" _mi_nitcu_tu'a_xe'e_tanxe_
> (or do _tu'a_ and _xe'e_ cancel eachother out -- I think the order is
> right: _tu'a_ identifies the opaque context and _xe'e_ escapes it.)

This is not Jorge's xehe, but Jorge seems to be advocating "lohe" (with
meaning unchanged) for the function his xehe was to serve.

I support the "xehe" that pc proposes, but I think it would be useful
to have a complementary camvo, "xoho", say, that marks a sumti as
a NON-leaper. It would be an overt way of showing that we have not
inadvertently forgotten to insert a "xehe" or to use an initial
"da poi ... zohu".

As far as I am aware, there are no other proposals still floating around
for opacity solutions, so comment can focus on "lohe", "xehe" [a la pc],
and "xoho".

----
And