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

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

John's summary is great! I agree with the main point, but of course,
I disagree with lots of the details.

> pc has stated (and I believe he is correct) that all these opaque contexts
> (seek, desire, need, etc.) always involve a hidden abstraction. Some, like
> "seek", always involve an abstraction;

I don't know about "seek", but "look for" doesn't have to involve an
abstraction. "I am looking for my book" is perfectly transparent, and
I don't see why {sisku} can't be used for it.

> others, like "need" may sometimes
> involve an object rather than an abstraction:  you may simply need that
> there >be< an X, rather than needing to >do< something with X.

I don't think there is any essential difference in this respect between
{sisku} and {djica} on the one hand and {nitcu} on the other. Either all
can accept objects in the transparent sense, or none can.

> The
> appropriate way, then, to get an opaque reading of a sumti is to either make
> it explicitly an abstraction or to mark it with "tu'a", which creates a vague
> abstraction from a concrete sumti.

Yes, I agreed with this from the start. It would be nice to also be able to
mark the opaque case explicitly, though.

Jorge