From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Dec 31 10:20:53 1995 Reply-To: ucleaar Date: Sun Dec 31 10:20:53 1995 Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: tech:opaque To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR Message-ID: pc: > Actually, I think that virtually all opacity is bridi subordination, > but that some cases of subordination are encapsulated in lexical > items, so that -- to take an English example which is relatively > safe -- "hunt" has in reality the same structure as "intends/desires > that ... TAKE ---", where the ... is filled by the subject of "hunt" > and the --- by the object, which is thus subordinated in an > intentional context. (TAKE is a shorthand for a concept of > trophyizing, whether it involve killing or trapping or just seeing or > photographing or whatever.) We agree on the semantics then. But not on whether syntax should match semantics. > The only case that I am not sure is bridi subordination is artistic > representation and there, for the most part, it might be, to the point > that I am willing to treat it as such, with _tu'a_ in Lojban, for > example. If you mark it with {tua} then some subordinate bridi is implied. As I said in my previous message, I agree that artistic representation is doubtful as to whether it involves bridi subordination; as I said, I used to advocate {dahi} in such cases, until I realized that {dahi} is in the wrong selmao for the purpose. > As for how to opacize places which are not so officially -- which, > if the &x version is an accurate report of the present situation, > seems the best way to save the day (though I dislike it intensely, > from my older point of view -- opacity is not a new discovery but > just once was assumed to be in order as it was in all the source > langauges, not just English) -- the obvious selma'o is LAhE, which > contains all those strange descriptors that attach to already over > descriptored expressions to convert them into even stranger > descriptions (or descriptions of even stranger things): right grammar: > attaches to sumti; semantics so obscure as to permit this move > to another world without seeming out of place. For shifts to other worlds, we need something in NAhE, as I've said before, rather than in LAhE. (But I can see how that is debatable.) I accept that in principle there could be a new addition to LAhE that means "the quantification on this sumti does not belong in the bridi the default rules would locate it in". This in effect is what Jorge proposed virtually at the start of the debate on "any" - I think he called it {xee}. --- And