Re: TECH: Transparence / Opaqueness

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

la kris cusku di'e

> Is that really true?  Aren't both interpretations possible of "ko cpacu le
> tanxe"?  It could mean "go get me a box (any box)" or "go get me a box
> (whose location I'm about to reveal...)"

It depends on how {ko} is defined. If {ko cpacu lo tanxe} means "make {do
cpacu lo tanxe} true", then you don't get to choose which box, because the
sentence will be true whichever box {do} chooses to get. If imperatives are
defined some other way, then I agree that the opaque/transparent distinction
might make sense for them too.

>         Is it OK to allow the implied transparent "zo'e" to sit there in
>         the x2 place when we're trying to be opaque?  Or can the "obvious
>         value" of zo'e happen to be "ne'e"?

What's {ne'e}?  I thought it was undefined, and it is the actual cmavo I had
in mind for {xe'e}.

> >Of course, if someone comes
> >asking me {do xanto kalte ma}, I wouldn't know what to respond.
>
> I think that's OK, even though opaque and transparent don't occur together
> in English.
>
>         mi xanto kalte          I'm hunting elephants!
>         .i go'i ma?             Which one(s) in particular?
>         .i go'i ne'e            None in particular.
>    OR
>         .i go'i la dambos.      I'm hunting elephants, specifically Dumbo
>         .i .o'onai do palci     Oooh, you're evil!

If you replace {ne'e} with {xe'eda}, I think I agree.

Jorge