From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Tue Nov 22 19:40:12 1994
Message-Id: <199411230040.AA28806@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Tue Nov 22 19:40:12 1994
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: solutions to sumti opacity
Status: RO

la and cusku di'e

> SUMMARY
> (1) viska & other perception gismu often don't mean what we want them
> to. The solution is to use lujvo with a new siho-type place for the
> mental representation of the percept.

I think we could use the opaque markers for this too.

        ko'a viska lo'e gerku

doesn't claim that there is a dog with the property of being seen
by Koha, it only makes a claim about Koha's perception, so I think
it's ok to use it when the perception doesn't match the stimulus.

> (2) the x2 of djica, nitcu, troci & other intentional gismu should be
> of siho-type.

I don't like that at all. I prefer to be able to want and need objects
rather than ideas. (And I like being able to say "this is needed", "this
is wanted", without circumlocutions.)

> (3) a siho-type sumti can alternate with lu..lihu. "lo siho" involves
> the speaker's description of x1's thoughts, while "lu...lihu" is a
> "verbatim" representation of the x1's thoughts, or is a representation
> of how the x1 might have described x1's thoughts.

Just use {la'e} in front of {lu} and it works for me:

        do djica la'e lu mi ponse le cukta li'u

Otherwise, what you want is the sentence "mi ponse le cukta".

> ----
> And

Jorge