Re: solutions to sumti opacity

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

la and cusku di'e

> >         ko'a viska lo'e gerku
>
> This means koha saw the generic dog, & probably (I don't know how
> the scope of the genericity is decided) means that if X is a typical
> dog then koha saw X.

There is no X that is a typical dog, at least not a {lo'e gerku}, I'm
not talking about ordinary dogs {lo fadni gerku}. {lo'e gerku} is not
a transparent reference, it doesn't have an identifiable referent.

> > > (2) the x2 of djica, nitcu, troci & other intentional gismu should be
> > > of siho-type.
> >
> > I don't like that at all. I prefer to be able to want and need objects
> > rather than ideas. (And I like being able to say "this is needed", "this
> > is wanted", without circumlocutions.)
>
> We've been through this before. If you want/need objects, then there's
> implicit sumti raising, & the x2 will have to be transparent.

Certainly the x2 will have to be transparent unless otherwise marked, but
why is there implicit sumti raising in the transparent case?

If I say "I go to the market", is there implicit sumti raising? After all,
what I really mean is that my location changes to coincide with the location
of the market. Is there any predicate that doesn't involve implicit sumti
raising?

> I suggest
> that you content yourself with lujvo from djica, nitcu etc., with
> transparent x2, & if you want an opaque reference, use djica/nitcu
> with siho-type x2.

If you have no problem with such lujvo, why do you have a problem with
a gismu that would have the same meaning? Especially since such gismu
allows you to say the same things you could say with the other
interpretation but in a simpler manner.

How would you say "this is needed" with the siho-type x2? Something
like {le si'o du ti se nitcu}, instead of {ti se nitcu}.

Is there anything that is easier to say with the siho-type interpretation?

> As I recall, you felt that djica and nitcu entailed claxu, so
> you could try "claxu zei djica/nitcu" for the lujvo you crave.

I now recognize that they don't entail claxu, and what's worse, claxu
is just as prone to opacity as the others.  :)

To make the siho-thing work, you'd have to be able to identify each and
every gismu that likes opaque referencial sumti, otherwise you are not
being very consistent. Why not use a solution that is general and not
dependant on particular sumti? And why do you allow lujvo to have
meanings that you don't allow for simple gismu. There shouldn't be any
difference in the types of predicates that are allowed for gismu and
for lujvo.

> >         do djica la'e lu mi ponse le cukta li'u
> >
> > Otherwise, what you want is the sentence "mi ponse le cukta".
>
> But we don't want the referent, either, do we? Or can we say that
> the referent of an utterance can be a thought? If so, then yes to
> "lahe".

Well, you don't want the thought itself either, you want what the
thought expresses, and that is what I understood {la'e} to mean.

Jorge