From araizen@newmail.net Tue Apr 24 15:33:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 22:33:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 92470 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 22:33:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 22:33:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ci.egroups.com) (10.1.2.81) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 22:33:25 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.2.116] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Apr 2001 22:33:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:33:20 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: RE:sumti raising Message-ID: <9c4uvg+cese@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1698 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.182.101 From: "Adam Raizen" 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