Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 10:47:14 -0500 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411271547.AA00409@access1.digex.net> Subject: Re: solutions to sumti opacity Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 27 10:47:18 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab UC>> To make the siho-thing work, you'd have to be able to identify each and UC>> every gismu that likes opaque referencial sumti, otherwise you are not UC>> being very consistent. UC> UC>I quite agree. This is really something that's already been underway, UC>--More-- UC>since there's been a long-standing attempt to get rid of sumti-raising UC>and have syntactic structure correspond more accurately to semantic UC>structure. This is really something that has been "completed". The time to do this ENDED when I did the dictionary. One or two minor place structure changes could still be accomplished. Anything more major means there is no dictionary. UC>> of the market. Is there any predicate that doesn't involve implicit sumti UC>> raising? UC> UC>"Gerku" doesn't involve sumti raising. "Klama" probably does, but this UC>never causes problems because there is no intentionality. Never? Last weekend, mi klama lo diklo ke djacu ckana zarci having identified 2 propspects in the phone book. Both turned out to be out-of-business and hence our klama-ing turned out to be very intentional and not very realizable %^) (we did find a not-so-local store). lojbab