Message-Id: <m0rBjZN-00007EC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 26 Nov 1994 19:44:42 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: solutions to sumti opacity
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3575
Lines: 84

And:
> "Lohe gerku" does have an identifiable referent. There is only ever
> one "lohe gerku", namely the "ideal/prototypical" dog - which is not
> actually a dog but rather a concept or something transcendental.

And what does seeing that concept then mean? Surely you don't hold that
the light rays emanated from it? In {mi viska lo'e gerku} I understand
what is the image perceived by {mi}, but I don't think I'm saying that
the source of the light rays was necessarily a dog.

> When I said "if X is a typical dog" I meant "if X is conceptualized as
> an instance of the ideal/prototypical dog".

Ok, a cat could be conceptualized as such an instance, I suppose.

> > Certainly the x2 will have to be transparent unless otherwise marked, but
> > why is there implicit sumti raising in the transparent case?
>
> Because wanting involves two bridi: one for the desiderative attitude
> and one for the desideratum.

If the desideratum is a bridi, of course. My point is that the desideratum
can equally well be an object.

> > How would you say "this is needed" with the siho-type x2? Something
> > like {le si'o du ti se nitcu}, instead of {ti se nitcu}.
>
> I'm not sure what the possible referents of "ti" are.

Things you can point to with your finger, I think.

> If it can
> refer to a thought then "ti" could be a siho-type x2. If you
> want to refer to a book you need to read, then you would say
> "lo siho mi tcidu ti kei se nitcu".

That's different, I didn't want to say what I needed the book for,
nor who needed it. The reason for the need goes in the x3 of nitcu anyway.
And "I need the book to read it" is slightly different from "I need to
read the book".

> > Is there anything that is easier to say with the siho-type interpretation?
>
> No. But it makes things more rational: the syntax is a more faithful
> reflection of the meaning, with the useful consequence that logical
> problems of opacity go away.

Of the meaning you chose. I don't believe there is any "one true meaning"
for any gismu. Which meaning is a better choice is quite subjective.
(And the logical problems of opacity go away in my interpretation as well.)

> > > >         do djica la'e lu mi ponse le cukta li'u
> > > >
> > Well, you don't want the thought itself either, you want what the
> > thought expresses, and that is what I understood {la'e} to mean.
>
> It is confusing to use "want" as a gloss: it obscures the problem.
> The x2 of djica should refer to an idea whose realization pleases me
> and whose nonrealization displeases me. Given this, I think (in a
> muddled sort of way) that "lahe" is wrong for our purposes, and instead
> we need either:
>   (i) "lu broda lihu" means either "the sentence 'broda'" or
>       "the thought 'broda'", or

I think it means either, but it is the words, not what they express.
{lu mi klama li'u cu drani} means "'mi klama' is correct". It doesn't
mean that my going is correct. It matters little whether they are
thought, spoken or written words. To get what the words express, you
have to use a {la'e} in front.

>   (ii) We need an analogue of "lahe" that means "the idea of", e.g.
>        "xahe" in "xahe lu broda lihu", or

I don't really see the difference between "the idea of" and "that which
is expressed by". Can you be more explicit?

>   (iii) We need an analogue of "lu" that marks quoted thoughts, e.g.
>        "xuhu" in "mi djica xuhu mi viska do lihu"

I don't think it is necessary to say in what form were the words,
thought, spoken, written, or any other. But again, it is not the words
that are wanted.

Jorge