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 m0r65lz-00005bC; Sat, 12 Nov 94 01:52 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0802; Sat, 12 Nov 94 01:53:04 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0799; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 01:53:03 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4973; Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:49:56 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 18:54:54 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1196 Lines: 28 John's summary is great! I agree with the main point, but of course, I disagree with lots of the details. > pc has stated (and I believe he is correct) that all these opaque contexts > (seek, desire, need, etc.) always involve a hidden abstraction. Some, like > "seek", always involve an abstraction; I don't know about "seek", but "look for" doesn't have to involve an abstraction. "I am looking for my book" is perfectly transparent, and I don't see why {sisku} can't be used for it. > others, like "need" may sometimes > involve an object rather than an abstraction: you may simply need that > there >be< an X, rather than needing to >do< something with X. I don't think there is any essential difference in this respect between {sisku} and {djica} on the one hand and {nitcu} on the other. Either all can accept objects in the transparent sense, or none can. > The > appropriate way, then, to get an opaque reading of a sumti is to either make > it explicitly an abstraction or to mark it with "tu'a", which creates a vague > abstraction from a concrete sumti. Yes, I agreed with this from the start. It would be nice to also be able to mark the opaque case explicitly, though. Jorge