Re: [lojban] Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

If my memory serves, running seems the best idea.  It now appears that the previous thread apparently about {ro} and "any" was actually about the (apparently) odd behavior of quantifiers in the proximity to intensional contexts and so there is probably a double issue at hand. 

{do djicu le nu do citka ma} is a real world question embedded in an transworld context, so its answer turns out to reflect both its antecedents, with the issue being (at least partly) just where the quantifier goes in the the whole dialogue scheme.  To this there are many answers, none of them totally satisfactory nor generally agreed to, so a long storm is likely.  But I am (after all these years) a pessimist, so stick around for at least a while and see if something useful doesn't turn up.

---

From: Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:46 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

Again Google Groups didn't let me resurrect this old discussion. So please follow the link to follow the whole discussion.

And now it's my turn to ask the community once again after 18 years of disinterest.

I am not sure whether to make a bowl of popcorn, or run away.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.