Message-Id: <m0r7eLl-00006eC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:05:42 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Sat, 12 Nov 94 12:40:53 EST.)
Content-Length: 1200
Lines: 33

Jorge:
> > > 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.
> >
> > "There is a book belonging to me, and I am trying to find it."
> > ----
> > And
>
> I don't understand. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Your sentence doesn't
> involve opacity either.
>
> Do you agree that I can say {mi sisku le mi cukta}, where {le mi cukta}
> is not a property but an object?

Sorry, I seem to have sent a truncated version of the message. I mean
that "seek" means "X try to bring about the event of X finding Y" -
that is, there is an abstraction that can give rise to opacity, but
in your example it is transparent.

As for whether "mi sisku le mi cukta" should be possible, I think
either
  (a) it is possible & means "try to find" & because the event
      abstraction is implicit the Lojban rules mean that it is
      always transparent, so "mi sisku lo cukta" must mean
      "there is a book I'm trying to find".
  (b) it is impossible, and the x2 must be a "lenu...".

I prefer (b), but the status quo wd appear to be either (a) or
confusion.

----
And