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 m0rBlqo-00007EC; Sun, 27 Nov 94 17:49 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2649; Sun, 27 Nov 94 17:49:31 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2646; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 17:49:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6622; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 16:46:10 +0100 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 10:47:14 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: solutions to sumti opacity X-To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1172 Lines: 27 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