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 m0r7QSF-00006eC; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:09 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2997; Tue, 15 Nov 94 18:10:13 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2994; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 18:10:13 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6178; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 17:07:00 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:07:29 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411121252.AA16634@nfs2.digex.net> from "ucleaar" at Nov 12, 94 12:49:59 pm Content-Length: 1015 Lines: 23 la xorxes. cusku di'e > > 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. The point is that "sisku" doesn't mean "seek/look for", but rather "seek/look for something with a specified property". The reason for doing this is that seeking very frequently involves something that is -specific but where we do not wish to commit ourselves with a +existent locution. The degenerate case "I'm looking for my book (+specific)" becomes "I'm looking for something with the property of being my book", i.e. mi sisku le ka du le mi cukta mi sisku tu'a le mi cukta However, if we say "I'm looking for an English translation of Jorge de Montemayor's >Diana<", the "le ka" formulation saves us from error even if there is no such translation. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.