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 m0rEmW6-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 01:08 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1636; Tue, 06 Dec 94 01:08:35 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1633; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 01:08:32 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7782; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 00:04:23 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:50:11 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 914 Lines: 21 la djan cusku di'e > We agree that "mi sisku lo broda" means "there exists a broda that I am > looking for", which is not at all the sense of "I'm looking for a thingummy", > which is "mi sisku le ka broda". If we agree that "mi sisku lo broda" means "there exists a broda that I am looking for", then from that "mi sisku le broda" means "for each of the broda I have in mind, it is true that I'm looking for it". But that is not compatible with "mi sisku le ka broda", unless it means that I'm looking for the property and not an object with that property. > The point of debate is whether to tolerate "mi sisku le mi broda", where the > object of search is +specific, as a valid extension of the meaning of "sisku". With the definition as it is now in the gismu list, "mi sisku lo broda" does not mean "there exists a broda that I am looking for". What I was arguing for is that it should mean that. Jorge