Subject: Re: Bringing it about that

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:16:15 EST

In a message dated 12/9/2000 5:15:23 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> <<it seems to me that "sumti-raising"
> as a separate issue derives from NU LOGJI TERPA that
> is more GLIJBO than LOBYKAI... how often does this
> create a misunderstanding that isn't readily guessable
> from context?>>
> 

True, it may be a rare case that causes trouble, but as a part of the Lojban 
commitment (sometimes disappearingly small) to being a *logical* language, it 
is essential -- and scarcely an Anglicism, since English is notoriously bad 
at doing this sort of thing.  The problem in simplest terms is that unflagged 
raised subjects can be quantified over and thus held to exist when they do 
not (or, more accurately, where they do not, i.e., in the real world rather 
than only in the intensional ones).  This also misconstrues cases that should 
be clear: moving from "I am hunting a unicorn" to "There is a (particular) 
unicorn I am hunting."  Subject raising is needed then, at least as a 
corrective: "No, no, I meant to say I am hunting tu'a a unicorn"