From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sun Nov 27 19:47:49 1994 Message-Id: <199411280047.AA22084@nfs2.digex.net> Date: Sun Nov 27 19:47:49 1994 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: solutions to sumti opacity In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sun, 27 Nov 94 10:47:14 EST.) <199411271547.AA00409@access1.digex.net> Status: RO 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>I quite agree. This is really something that's already been underway, > 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. This seems reasonable. We take all gismu place structures as baselined. If we think the place structure of some gismu is defective, we define a lujvo to use instead. > 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). Let's simplify things & assume the zarci in question never existed. In this case it is false that "mi klama lo zarci". Suppose I want to describe things from your point of view and say "you were going to a shop, but when you got there you found it had never existed". I can't translate this by "do klama lo zarci". That would seem to be a problem for 'subjectivity', the device, often used in fiction, of describing a situation from the point of view not of the narrator but of one of the participants in the situation. I imagine literary types, like Nick, might be concerned by this. --- And