Re: Opacity and "sisku"

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, ucleaar wrote:

> Djan:
> > There seems to have been some sort of confusion about the place
> > structure I proposed for "sisku", with a property in x2.  This
> > did not mean that "sisku" was a search for properties, but rather
> > a structure of the form:
> >    x1 searches for a thing/things with property x2 from field (set) x3
> [...]
> >        da poi bloti zo'u mi sisku le ka me da
> >        There exists a boat X such that I search for something with
> >                the property of being X.
> >        mi sisku le ka [ce'u zo'u] ce'u bloti
> >        I search-for-something-with the property-that {x : x is-a-boat}.
>
> I don't object to this structure in itself, but I don't see why {sisku}
> should be different from {nitcu}, {djica}, {kaltu}, etc etc. Are you
> able to persuade Lojbab to change the place structures of all opacifying
> gismu, so they match {sisku}?
> coo; mie and
>
Well, {sisku} and {kaltu} have the predicate of their nu-clauses already
built into their underlying semantics, so that a nu-clause argument will
not make sense, as it will with {nitcu} and {djica} and most (? I haven't
really counted, but many anyhow) of the opaquing predicates.  I have to
admit that, for most uses, {nitcu} could be taken to embody "to
possess/have access to something possessing the property...," on the model
of {sisku}.  But not always, and {djica} does not suggest any similar
deep structure at all.  By the way, I still do not like the {sisku}
solution much, but it is better than ignoring the problem or trying to
foist it off on the descriptor involved.
pc>|83