solutions to sumti opacity

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

What follows is a suggestion for solving the problem of opaque sumti,
which has not yet, I reckon (though not necessarily coreectly,
of course), been solved.

"Viska" is defined as:
  x1 sees x2 under conditions x3
So "mi viska lo mlatu" means "There is a cat that I see". The x2
refers to the stimulus.
Seeing as we normally understand it involves (a) sensing the stimulus
and (b) categorizing the percept. "Viska" needn't have anything to
do with (b). So "mi viska lo mlatu, but I didn't notice the cat"
is OK.

What we will usually require is an extra sumti for the categorization
of the percept. Let's have a lujvo "sizviska" (it fails the tosmabru
test, but sod that)
   the visual sensory apparatus of x1 is impinged upon by stimulus x2
   and the resulting percept is categorized as x3 (under conditions x4)

If you ziho off the x3 you get back to "viska". If you ziho off the
x2 you get seeing things that aren't necessarily actually there (e.g.
I saw a ghost, I saw the Virgin Mary hold out her arms to me).

Sizviska allows for cases where the stimulus is a cat but I think I
see a dog.

Since the x3 is a mental entity, it can be "le [anything]" or
"lo sidbo" or "lo siho ...".
"I see a poltergeist" would be "mi sizviska zohe lo siho kaspruxi",
or "mi sizviska ziho lo siho kaspruxi". (or "vrupruxi" or something.)
"I see you go" would be "mi sizviska fi lo siho do klama".
"lo siho do klama" is what is in the mind of the seer. One could
also say "mi sizviska fi lo sidbo be fe lo nu do klama", which means
"you left, and I saw it".

If I think I see Lojbab, or a certain cat, there is a problem. I
don't think we can say:
  "mi sizviska fi lo siho la lojbab"
  "mi sizviska fi lo siho le mlatu"
and using "lo siho me la lojbab", "lo siho me le mlatu" is too vague.

So I would suggest:
  "mi sizviska fi lu la lojbab lihu"
  "mi sizviska fi lu le mlatu lihu"
and hope we will allow quotation to represent thought as well as speech.

This proposal would extend to other intentional (or do I mean intensional?)
(no I think I mean intentional) brivla, such as djica and nitcu.
"Do djica lo nu mi klama" is the speaker's description of what "do"
wants; "Do djica mi ponse le cukta" - the specific cukta is in-mind
of the speaker not of the wanter. Maybe we should do "djica" in the
following way:
  There is a book you want to have:
      da poi cukta do djica lo siho do ponse da
      do djica lo sidbo be fe lo nu do ponse lo cukta
  You want to have a book (any book)
      do djica lo siho do ponse lo cukta
      do djica lo siho da poi cukta zohu do ponse da
  You want to have what I describe as a book:
      do djica lo siho do ponse le cukta
  You desire to have what I call _Hamlet_:
      do djica lo siho do ponse la .amlet.
  You desire the realization of your idea "I have a certain book"
      do djica lu mi ponse le cukta lihu
  You desire the realization of your idea "I have what I call _Hamlet_"
      do djica lu mi ponse la .amlet. lihu

SUMMARY
(1) viska & other perception gismu often don't mean what we want them
to. The solution is to use lujvo with a new siho-type place for the
mental representation of the percept.
(2) the x2 of djica, nitcu, troci & other intentional gismu should be
of siho-type.
(3) a siho-type sumti can alternate with lu..lihu. "lo siho" involves
the speaker's description of x1's thoughts, while "lu...lihu" is a
"verbatim" representation of the x1's thoughts, or is a representation
of how the x1 might have described x1's thoughts.

----
And