From pycyn@aol.com Sun Apr 22 08:13:09 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 15:13:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 60751 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 15:13:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 15:13:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 15:13:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id r.c0.1312ecd4 (4068) for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:12:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:12:56 EDT Subject: RE:sumti raising To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c0.1312ecd4.28144ef8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 6807 --part1_c0.1312ecd4.28144ef8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think that the cases cited are not real problems for sumti raising as they stand. It is probable that, if someone's acts deceive you that someone exists and that, therefore, there is someone who(se act) deceives you. The problem comes when the place of the predicate moves into another world, whether of dreams or hopes or literature or what have you and the person whose acts are involved may not exist at all in the outer world of discourse. Then you don't want to be able to go from the fact that you dream of someone's acts to you dream of someone to there is someone you dream of. So, here sumti raising has to be marked. Then, for logical consistency, it has to be marked in other places where it occurs. But, as somone (&? xorxes? that kind of mind anyhow) has pointed out, it is hard to know where to stop, for it is not someone's acts that deceive me but my interpretation of that act and so, ought the {le nu ko'a zukte} be flagged as raised. And so on forever. In practice, we mainly flag references to concrete individuals (abstract ones seem to exist whether or not they occur) and we don't criiticize the absence of {tu'a} except where it makes a difference of the logical sort (individuals are events after all, though real only when they occur). --part1_c0.1312ecd4.28144ef8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think that the cases cited are not real problems for sumti raising as they
stand.  It is probable that, if someone's acts deceive you that someone
exists and that, therefore, there is someone who(se act) deceives you.  The
problem comes when the place of the predicate moves into another world,
whether of dreams or hopes or literature or what have you and the person
whose acts are involved may not exist at all in the outer world of discourse.
 Then you don't want to be able to go from the fact that you dream of
someone's acts to you dream of someone  to there is someone you dream of.  
So, here sumti raising has to be marked.  Then, for logical consistency, it
has to be marked in other places where it occurs.  But, as somone (&? xorxes?
that kind of mind anyhow) has pointed out, it is hard to know where to stop,
for it is not someone's acts that deceive me but my interpretation of that
act and so, ought the {le nu ko'a zukte} be flagged as raised.  And so on
forever.  In practice, we mainly flag  references to concrete individuals
(abstract ones seem to exist whether or not they occur) and we don't
criiticize the absence of {tu'a} except where it makes a difference of the
logical sort (individuals are events after all, though real only when they
occur). --part1_c0.1312ecd4.28144ef8_boundary--