From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Nov 11 08:33:28 1994
Message-Id: <199411111333.AA25833@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Fri Nov 11 08:33:28 1994
From: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Subject:      Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
Status: RO

cu'u la djan. kau,n.
> After some voice conversations with pc and lojbab, I think there is a fairly
> clearcut resolution for the problems that have been agitating the List since
> August, or whenever.  The short version is:  most of Jorge's points are
> well-taken, and his views are for the most part sound; however, his actual
> proposal ("xe'e") doesn't seem to be necessary.

I'm happy with {tu'a} as an acceptable solution myself, but I think
Jorge found it unacceptably vague, and wanted {xe'e} to mean something
more specific.  However, I was never quite sure what it *was* intended
to mean.
(And of course, Jorge will no doubt speak for himself. :)

> Some, like
> "seek", always involve an abstraction; 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 reckon "that there >be< an X" is an abstraction.  On the other hand,
I agree that it is possible to need an object.

co'o mi'e .i,n.