Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. joi mi cusku be di'e casnu

> > > I could understand this if it never made sense to have an object
> > > being looked for, but it does make sense, so I don't see the need
> > > to forbid this simple expression.
> >
> > Quantifier error!
> >
> > It is false that "it never makes sense", right enough. However, it is
> > also false that "it does [always] make sense".
> 
> When does it not make sense?
> 
> A different matter is whether the opaque case can be easily expressed,
> but the transparent case always makes sense with sisku meaning "x1 looks
> for object x2".

"Make sense" not in the sense of having an established meaning, but rather
in the sense of meaning what you (intuitively) would like it to mean.
We agree that "mi sisku lo broda" means "there exists a broda that I am
looking for", which is not at all the sense of "I'm looking for a thingummy",
which is "mi sisku le ka broda".

The point of debate is whether to tolerate "mi sisku le mi broda", where the
object of search is +specific, as a valid extension of the meaning of "sisku".

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.