From araizen@newmail.net Sat Apr 21 17:09:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 22 Apr 2001 00:09:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 18616 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2001 00:09:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Apr 2001 00:09:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch.egroups.com) (10.1.10.51) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2001 00:09:35 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.2.74] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Apr 2001 00:09:35 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:09:35 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: sumti raising Message-ID: <9bt7fv+9lia@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 447 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.181.191 From: "Adam Raizen" Why is it that "tcica", "bapli" (among many others, probably) have an event in the x1 place? Doesn't deception/coercion logically require a deceiver/coercer, or is there some other meaning of these words that doesn't require an actor? The actor here is not simply raised out of some place of the abstraction, but is a integral part of the definition. I think it's probably more useful just to put the actor in the x1 place. mu'o mi'e adam