From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:30 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Dec 18 20:34:29 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH:opaque (ex mass and le/lo) To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec 18 20:34:29 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: > 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