Re: any, opaque, transparent, xe'e...

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

>And one other thing... About the opaque/transparent thing... I have been
>listening to the discussion for about a month (or more?), and I basically
>know what is wrong with "any", but I can't figure out what in fact do
>"opaque" andate, but my mind
>usually just skips over these words, not being able to parse them.

A transparent reference is a linguistic reference to something; an opaque
reference is what *appears* to be a reference, but it doesn't *in fact*
reference any particular thing.  It's *kind of* like an uninstantiated variable.

"I need that red box" is transparent, because, in context, there is some red
box that the speaker and listener both know is being referred to specifically.

"I need a red box" (in its usual interpretation) is opaque, because "a red
box" doesn't refer to any particular box, really it describes the kind of
need I have.  We've been using "any" as shorthand for this situation, but
that's not perfectly correct: consider this spooky Hallowe'en dialog:

      Santa Claus:  "I need a red box to wrap Tommy's toy train."
      Elf:          "Here, use this one."
      Santa:        "No, I need a bigger one"

Obviously not just "any" red box was good enough for Santa.  It's also been
suggested that "a red box" here actually does refer to something: one
unidentified member of the set of red boxes which exist.  But that's not
strictly true either; consider:

      Santa:  "I need a red box to wrap Tommy's toy train!"
      Elf:    "I'll get some tape and red cardboard and make one for you"

or even:

      Santa:  "I need a red unicorn"
      Elf:    "Tough luck.  The unicorn is a mythical beast."

You can't pin down what "a red box" is referring to because it doesn't refer
to anything.  It merely describes (some of) the needed thing's required
characteristics.

Notice that that only happens in certain contexts, where there's a sort of
implied negative in the semantics of the verb, that isn't handled by the
usual negation mechanisms: "need", "want", "lack", are grammatically
positive but semantically negative.  If you say "I smell a red box", or "I
see a red box", or "I sit on a red box", there's a particular box or boxes
being talked about, and the reference isn't opaque.

I have a suspicion that the *ideal* logical solution to all this, if we were
starting from scratch, is to eliminate words like nitcu, djica, and claxu
from the lexicon, and find a way of communicating those concepts that is
explicitly marked as negative.  But I don't think that's very practical at
this point.  Realistically I think we have to use either Lojbab's or Jorge's
marking schemes, or forbid opaque references altogether, using other
mechanisms like "mi tanxe nictu" to get the point across.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~