Subject: Re: RE:sumti raising

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:33:20 -0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

> I think that the cases cited are not real problems for sumti raising
as they 
> stand. It is probable that, if someone's acts deceive you that
someone 
> exists and that, therefore, there is someone who(se act) deceives
you. The 
> problem comes when the place of the predicate moves into another
world, 
> whether of dreams or hopes or literature or what have you and the
person 
> whose acts are involved may not exist at all in the outer world of
discourse. 
> Then you don't want to be able to go from the fact that you dream
of 
> someone's acts to you dream of someone to there is someone you
dream of. 
> So, here sumti raising has to be marked. Then, for logical
consistency, it 
> has to be marked in other places where it occurs. But, as somone
(&? xorxes? 
> that kind of mind anyhow) has pointed out, it is hard to know where
to stop, 
> for it is not someone's acts that deceive me but my interpretation
of that 
> act and so, ought the {le nu ko'a zukte} be flagged as raised. And
so on 
> forever. In practice, we mainly flag references to concrete
individuals 
> (abstract ones seem to exist whether or not they occur) and we
don't 
> criiticize the absence of {tu'a} except where it makes a difference
of the 
> logical sort (individuals are events after all, though real only
when they 
> occur).

The point I was trying to make is that deception by someone with a
motive is inherently different than deception by an inanimate event.
After having looked at the place structure of "bapli", I don't think
it has anything to do with coercion anymore. Maybe it will work as
a word for sufficient condition that I've been looking for.

mu'o mi'e adam