From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sun Nov 27 07:29:57 1994
Message-Id: <199411271229.AA08998@nfs2.digex.net>
Date: Sun Nov 27 07:29:57 1994
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: solutions to sumti opacity
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Wed, 23 Nov 94 12:30:48 EST.)
Status: RO

John:
> > If I think I see Lojbab, or a certain cat, there is a problem. I
> > don't think we can say:
> >   "mi sizviska fi lo siho la lojbab"
> >   "mi sizviska fi lo siho le mlatu"
> > and using "lo siho me la lojbab", "lo siho me le mlatu" is too vague.
> >
> > So I would suggest:
> >   "mi sizviska fi lu la lojbab lihu"
> >   "mi sizviska fi lu le mlatu lihu"
> > and hope we will allow quotation to represent thought as well as speech.
>
> Without prejudice to the rest of And's message, this bit is not necessary.
> "lo si'o du la lojbab", "the idea of being identical to Lojbab", does what
> he wants, I believe.

Counterintuitive though it is, I do see that this entirely solves the
syntactic problem. But in "lo siho du la lojbab" and "le siho du le
nanmu", the "la lojbab" is "what the speaker calls Lojbab", and
the referent of "le nanmu" is in-mind of the speaker. I would like
to be able to find a way to change this from 'speaker' to 'the person
thinking the thought'.
In the absence of any other solution, "mi sizviska fi lu le/la xxx lihu"
is still required.
----
And