From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:47:24 2010 Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Mar 25 12:11:25 1996 From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: Opacity and "sisku" To: lojban list In-Reply-To: <199603231750.AA29509@mail.crl.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1611 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 25 12:11:25 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, ucleaar wrote: > Djan: > > There seems to have been some sort of confusion about the place > > structure I proposed for "sisku", with a property in x2. This > > did not mean that "sisku" was a search for properties, but rather > > a structure of the form: > > x1 searches for a thing/things with property x2 from field (set) x3 > [...] > > da poi bloti zo'u mi sisku le ka me da > > There exists a boat X such that I search for something with > > the property of being X. > > mi sisku le ka [ce'u zo'u] ce'u bloti > > I search-for-something-with the property-that {x : x is-a-boat}. > > I don't object to this structure in itself, but I don't see why {sisku} > should be different from {nitcu}, {djica}, {kaltu}, etc etc. Are you > able to persuade Lojbab to change the place structures of all opacifying > gismu, so they match {sisku}? > coo; mie and > Well, {sisku} and {kaltu} have the predicate of their nu-clauses already built into their underlying semantics, so that a nu-clause argument will not make sense, as it will with {nitcu} and {djica} and most (? I haven't really counted, but many anyhow) of the opaquing predicates. I have to admit that, for most uses, {nitcu} could be taken to embody "to possess/have access to something possessing the property...," on the model of {sisku}. But not always, and {djica} does not suggest any similar deep structure at all. By the way, I still do not like the {sisku} solution much, but it is better than ignoring the problem or trying to foist it off on the descriptor involved. pc>|83