Re: any

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

I think we are converging!


> JL>= "I need this box", makes perfect sense. And so does {mi djica le vi
 tanxe}
>
> Does it?  The (1) or (2) dichotomy above

[that was (1) {mi nitcu lo tanxe} can have opaque/transparent meaning
              according to context.
          (2) It's always transparent (or always opaque, but I think
              no one argued for always opaque.)  ]


> suggests that there is always a
> sumti raising going on, and we are allowing the raising when there is no
> scope problem, and not otherwise.

Since I don't fully understand when sumti raising is acceptable and when
it isn't, I may or may not agree with that.

> That is, I think, different than the way
> we have dealt with other raising questions  (not necessarily wrong, but we
> really oughta know what we are dealing with).

Yes. I think {djica} and {nitcu} should be treated alike. (And also {sisku},
which for some reason is treated differently, and maybe {cpedu}, and who
knows how many more.)

>
> lojbab
>

Jorge