Re: solutions to sumti opacity

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

UC>> To make the siho-thing work, you'd have to be able to identify each and
UC>> every gismu that likes opaque referencial sumti, otherwise you are not
UC>> being very consistent.
UC>
UC>I quite agree. This is really something that's already been underway,
UC>--More--
UC>since there's been a long-standing attempt to get rid of sumti-raising
UC>and have syntactic structure correspond more accurately to semantic
UC>structure.

This is really something that has been "completed".  The time to do this
ENDED when I did the dictionary.  One or two minor place structure changes
could still be accomplished.  Anything more major means there is no
dictionary.

UC>> of the market. Is there any predicate that doesn't involve implicit sumti
UC>> raising?
UC>
UC>"Gerku" doesn't involve sumti raising. "Klama" probably does, but this
UC>never causes problems because there is no intentionality.

Never?  Last weekend, mi klama lo diklo ke djacu ckana zarci having identified
2 propspects in the phone book.  Both turned out to be out-of-business
and hence our klama-ing turned out to be very intentional and not very
realizable %^) (we did find a not-so-local store).

lojbab