Re: Apposed participials

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la kolin cusku di'e

> I have a very strong intuition that it is not the event which is the object
> of the seeing here. But as pc says the event is still part of the object.

If both the event and the person are seen, then shouldn't the claim be:

        mi viska da e le nu da kelcrpuli
        I saw x and I saw x playing pool.

> In many cases we can actually express it as
>
> mi viska da ca le nu da kelcrpuli
> 'I saw x at the time x plays-pool'
>
> and I have a suspicion that expressions of this sort will always work,

That doesn't claim that I saw the event of playing, only that I saw x
at that time.

In any case, I would translate "I saw someone playing pool" as
{mi viska le nu da kelcrpuli}. The English sentence may have other
connotations, but that will always happen when translating from one
language to another.

It would be reasonable to assume, if I saw the event of someone playing
pool, that I saw that someone, even if I don't exactly say so. That is
a matter of context. (The same for the {ca} case, it would be natural
to assume that the playing was seen, if the person was seen at the time
of playing.)

Another way out is:

        mi viska lo kelcrpuli
        I saw someone playing pool

(Well, the English translation is tendentious, but the Lojban can mean that.)

I'm not sure what this has to do with the transparent/opaque distinction,
as both claims, either with the object or with the event being seen, seem
transparent to me.

la kolin di'e spusku la djer

> > I hope this makes sense to you, I am still somewhat diaphanous about
> > transparency and opaqueness.
>
> Me too, but I don't think it's anything to do with identification or
> uniqueness.
>
> 1. mi pu viska paboi prenu ije ri kelci
>
> is true iff I saw  one person and that person plays. From it I can validly
> deduce
> 2. pa prenu cu kelci
>
> Now,
> 3. mi pu viska le nu paboi prenu cu kelci
>
> is true iff I saw happening the event of one person playing pool.
>
> I have indicated above why 3. does not entail 1.

We agree up to here.

> The question of transparency
> is whether 3. entails 2. or not.

I disagree with this. To me the question of transparency does not even
arise in this case, because the sumti in question is inside an abstraction.

Maybe my definition of opaque is wrong, but what I understand is that an
opaque claim, e.g. "I need a box" can be made transparent as "I need that
I have a box". The second claim is transparent in general, because the
verb "have" usually does not take opaque objects. (We could make up some
context like owning any one of the ten horses, but that is not a common
expression.)

Jorge