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 m0rAO8p-00007EC; Wed, 23 Nov 94 22:18 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1355; Wed, 23 Nov 94 22:18:23 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1354; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 22:18:23 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7509; Wed, 23 Nov 1994 21:15:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 20:10:08 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: solutions to sumti opacity X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 22 Nov 94 17:58:10 EST.) Content-Length: 1810 Lines: 47 Jorge: > > SUMMARY > > (1) viska & other perception gismu often don't mean what we want them > > to. The solution is to use lujvo with a new siho-type place for the > > mental representation of the percept. > > I think we could use the opaque markers for this too. > > ko'a viska lo'e gerku This means koha saw the generic dog, & probably (I don't know how the scope of the genericity is decided) means that if X is a typical dog then koha saw X. It makes sense, but is not the desired meaning. > > (2) the x2 of djica, nitcu, troci & other intentional gismu should be > > of siho-type. > > I don't like that at all. I prefer to be able to want and need objects > rather than ideas. (And I like being able to say "this is needed", "this > is wanted", without circumlocutions.) We've been through this before. If you want/need objects, then there's implicit sumti raising, & the x2 will have to be transparent. I suggest that you content yourself with lujvo from djica, nitcu etc., with transparent x2, & if you want an opaque reference, use djica/nitcu with siho-type x2. As I recall, you felt that djica and nitcu entailed claxu, so you could try "claxu zei djica/nitcu" for the lujvo you crave. > > (3) a siho-type sumti can alternate with lu..lihu. "lo siho" involves > > the speaker's description of x1's thoughts, while "lu...lihu" is a > > "verbatim" representation of the x1's thoughts, or is a representation > > of how the x1 might have described x1's thoughts. > > Just use {la'e} in front of {lu} and it works for me: > > do djica la'e lu mi ponse le cukta li'u > > Otherwise, what you want is the sentence "mi ponse le cukta". But we don't want the referent, either, do we? Or can we say that the referent of an utterance can be a thought? If so, then yes to "lahe". --- And