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 m0r8gcH-00005XC; Sat, 19 Nov 94 05:37 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7320; Sat, 19 Nov 94 05:37:46 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7317; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 05:37:46 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6522; Sat, 19 Nov 1994 04:34:34 +0100 Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:34:08 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: 706 Lines: 22 > > 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". When does it not make sense? A different matter is whether the opaque case can be easily expressed, but the transparent case always makes sense with sisku meaning "x1 looks for object x2". > In fact, it sometimes > makes sense and sometimes not. Having places which only sometimes make > sense is to be avoided. I'd like to see an example of when it would not make sense. Jorge