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 m0r3Y02-00005bC; Sat, 5 Nov 94 01:24 EET
Message-Id: <m0r3Y02-00005bC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8590; Sat, 05 Nov 94 01:25:02 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8587; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 01:25:03 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0058; Sat, 5 Nov 1994 00:11:26 +0100
Date:         Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:02:08 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Cowan weighs in #2: needing a box
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1447
Lines: 49

It seems to me that the Lojbab and Jorge systems are not irreconcilable.
There is no dispute that

1)      mi nitcu da poi tanxe
        I need something which is-a-box.

is transparent and that

2)      mi nitcu le nu mi ponse da poi tanxe
        I need the event-of (I possess something which is-a-box).

is opaque, for these appear in prenex form as:

3)      da poi tanxe zo'u mi nitcu da
        There-exists-an X which is-a-box such-that I need X.

and

4)      mi nitcu le nu da poi tanxe
                zo'u mi ponse da
        I need the event-of (there-exists-an X which is-a-box
                such-that I possess X).

Now, Example 2 can be changed to:

5)      mi nitcu tu'a da poi tanxe

with loss of information, for "tu'a <sumti>" means "le su'u <sumti> co'e",
in other words "the predication I have in mind of <sumti> doing/being
something obvious from context".

So Example 1 and Example 5 are terse ways of saying the transparent and
opaque senses of "I need a box" respectively.  (You can think of "dapoi"
as a quasi-article here.)

If "lo" turns out to be a synonym (modulo non-existence) for "da poi",
as many believe but pc does not, then

6)      mi nitcu lo tanxe

will be transparent per Jorge, and

7)      mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe

will be opaque.  But this question is not yet settled; see my #1.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.