Re: solutions to sumti opacity

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

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>I quite agree. This is really something that's already been underway,
> 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.

This seems reasonable. We take all gismu place structures as baselined.
If we think the place structure of some gismu is defective, we define
a lujvo to use instead.

> 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).

Let's simplify things & assume the zarci in question never existed. In
this case it is false that "mi klama lo zarci".

Suppose I want to describe things from your point of view and say
"you were going to a shop, but when you got there you found it had
never existed". I can't translate this by "do klama lo zarci".

That would seem to be a problem for 'subjectivity', the device, often
used in fiction, of describing a situation from the point of view
not of the narrator but of one of the participants in the situation.
I imagine literary types, like Nick, might be concerned by this.

---
And