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 m0r8FYm-000071C; Fri, 18 Nov 94 00:44 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3955; Fri, 18 Nov 94 00:44:17 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3952; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:44:06 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1951; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 23:40:49 +0100 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 15:14:10 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411170340.AA00721@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 16, 94 08:10:17 pm Content-Length: 867 Lines: 24 la xorxes. cusku di'e > The status quo seems to be neither of them, but: > > (c) it is impossible, and the x2 is a {le ka...}, where the > meaning is x1 looks for something (not quantified, thus > possibly an opaque reference) that has property x2. > > There is no place for the looked for object. > > I could understand this if it never made sense to have an object > being looked for, but it does make sense, so I don't see the need > to forbid this simple expression. Quantifier error! It is false that "it never makes sense", right enough. However, it is also false that "it does [always] make sense". In fact, it sometimes makes sense and sometimes not. Having places which only sometimes make sense is to be avoided. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.