Re: Bringing it about that

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/9/2000 5:15:23 PM Central Standard Time,
graywyvern@hotmail.com writes:

<<it seems to me that "sumti-raising"
as a separate issue derives from NU LOGJI TERPA that
is more GLIJBO than LOBYKAI... how often does this
create a misunderstanding that isn't readily guessable
from context?>>

True, it may be a rare case that causes trouble, but as a part of the Lojban
commitment (sometimes disappearingly small) to being a *logical* language, it
is essential -- and scarcely an Anglicism, since English is notoriously bad
at doing this sort of thing.  The problem in simplest terms is that unflagged
raised subjects can be quantified over and thus held to exist when they do
not (or, more accurately, where they do not, i.e., in the real world rather
than only in the intensional ones). This also misconstrues cases that should
be clear: moving from "I am hunting a unicorn" to "There is a (particular)
unicorn I am hunting." Subject raising is needed then, at least as a
corrective: "No, no, I meant to say I am hunting tu'a a unicorn"