Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rJnvf-00007DC; Mon, 19 Dec 94 21:39 EET
Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA27813 for <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 21:39:30 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (MAILER@SEARN)
 by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494)
 id <01HKU85449S0000EG2@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 19:38:35 +0200 (EET)
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN)
 by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6618; Mon,
 19 Dec 1994 20:36:18 +0100
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:36:19 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: "lo'e" and "sisku" (was: opacity and sumti-raising)
In-reply-to: <199411190415.AA06268@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov
 18, 94 08:03:40 pm
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKU854WIYQ000EG2@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1430
Lines: 34

la xorxes. joi mi casnu

> > > Here I would use {lo'e}:
> > >
> > >         mi sisku lo'e xe fanva be la'o sy Diana sy bei la gliban
> > >
> > >
> > > {lo'e broda} doesn't claim that {lo broda} exists, does it?
> >
> > I don't know that that has been settled.  But I find the idea of an
> > archetype of a non-existent (in the appropriate universe of discourse) thing
> > rather problematic.  What could be predicated of this {lo'e xe fanva}, other
> > than what we say in the embedded place structures?
>
> Lots of things. It can be looked for, needed, wanted, etc. Any predicate
> that makes sense with an opaque reference.

Yes, if you accept that "lo'e" marks an opaque reference.  If you don't, then
"lo'e <nonexistent>" has rather few properties, if any.

> Another problem of not making the x2 of sisku the object of the search is
> that it makes it very difficult to single out the looked for thing.
> For example, in a game of hide-and-seek, there is {le sisku}, and what
> I'd like to call {le se sisku}, but I can't with sisku as it is now.

I am now prepared to call for the x2 of sisku to become an "object/property"
place; I agree that "mi sisku lemi mapku" is too useful a case to require
convolutions.  Since the change to "sisku" was rather recent, I have no
qualms about retreating halfway.

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