Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:29:22 -0800 (PST) From: "John E. Clifford" To: Logical Language Group Cc: cowan@ccil.org Subject: Re: opacity In-Reply-To: <199603262056.PAA05171@access1.digex.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1413 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Mar 28 11:19:03 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - I have borowed an ftp engine that presented me (with a lot of kicking and screaming, but successfully, unlike either of my offical critters) with the refgrammar files from digex/pub -- hopefully the latest set. I hereby apologize about the abstractors, which were the subject of the first text I happened to read. They actually look to be in pretty good shape as reported in the text; the way they get used is less comforting, though, so maybe the text needs to stress good usage more. The only places I was really uncomfortable were with indirect questions and su'u. I think that Bob's note, to which this is offically a reply takes cae of the latter problem and the question problem is just (I think) lingering fear of leka malglico. Of course, I think su'u in most of its uses is lazy, but then that is what most uses in real language are, so so much the better for it. Refgram does need to deal with opacity and maybe it does elsewhere, in which case it should be cross-referenced at abstraction, where most of the opacities lie. I still have ahalf a cause paper in the box and a start on an "other worlds" paper, which included opacity and all that stuff that JCB is busy screwing up right now (by the way, "under condition", if it is a BAI or so, will do a lot the counterfactual work). I think I am now back to more or less full participation, for whatever that is worth. pc>|83