Message-Id: <m0rBjRT-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 27 Nov 1994 12:16:16 +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 Mon, 21 Nov 94 03:54:40 EST.)
Content-Length: 1276
Lines: 26

Lojbab:
> as pc said a while
> back in this discussion - there are some predicates that embody a hidden
> abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this (it
> is possible that "opacity" is nothing more nor less than the existence of
> such a hidden abstraction, in which case a "tu'a"-like mark in LAhE seems
> appropriate to me even if I have trouble figuring out whether it would ever
> be used or useful)

This doesn't really sound like pc's proposal, where the "xehe" is located
inside an overt abstraction, and marks a sumti as removable to the initial
da..zohu. The only tuha-ish function I understood him to be proposing
is with imperatives: "Give me a book" is "ko mi te se te dunda xehe lo
cukta". And even here, the function is only superficially tuha-like.

As I understood the proposal, the idea is that even a main bridi with
sumti "ko" is covertly subordinate, so "xehe"
would block removal to a "da.... zohu" before the implicit superordinate
bridi (which is something like "I command that").
"Ko mi te se te dunda xehe lo cukta" is "For every book, x, "you give
me a book" is satisfied if you give me x".
In contrast, "Ko mi te se te dunda lo cukta" is "'you give me a book'
is satisfied if there is a book that you give me".

-----
And