Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA07403 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:21:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199412060121.AA07403@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6449; Mon, 05 Dec 94 20:20:08 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3220; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:50:19 -0500 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 X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 5 20:21:58 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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