Message-Id: <199512190117.DAA14155@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:16:30 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH:opaque (ex mass and le/lo)
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1225
Lines: 24

> Another example discussed here once was "that is a human head". I would
> say {ta stedu lo'e remna}. You may want to say {ta stedu tu'a lo remna},
> pc:
> Why would I want to say that?  If it is a human head then there is a
> very definite -- though presumably dead -- human whose head it is.
> No opacity problems (basic rule is that the dead are always with
> us, though the not-yet-born may not be).

I wasn't thinking of dead bodies. Are you really suggesting that there
can be no human heads that were never attached to a human? Suppose that
in the year 3217 arificially produced human heads are sold in stores so
that you may go and buy a new one just as you buy shoes. A human head
is a perfectly conceivable object even in the absence of an instantiation
of a human being. You may want to say "I saw a human head" without
implying that there was a human whose head you saw.

If you don't like the example of human heads, then how about horse-shoes.
I would say {cutci lo'e xirma jamfu} = "shoe for horse-feet".

Anyway, you obviously don't approve of my use of {lo'e} for the archetype
rather than for the typical, but I find it much more useful, so until
there is a better solution, I'll keep using {lo'e}.

Jorge