"lo'e" and "sisku" (was: opacity and sumti-raising)

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. joi mi casnu

> > > Here I would use {lo'e}:
> > >
> > >         mi sisku lo'e xe fanva be la'o sy Diana sy bei la gliban
> > >
> > >
> > > {lo'e broda} doesn't claim that {lo broda} exists, does it?
> >
> > I don't know that that has been settled.  But I find the idea of an
> > archetype of a non-existent (in the appropriate universe of discourse) thing
> > rather problematic.  What could be predicated of this {lo'e xe fanva}, other
> > than what we say in the embedded place structures?
> 
> Lots of things. It can be looked for, needed, wanted, etc. Any predicate
> that makes sense with an opaque reference.

Yes, if you accept that "lo'e" marks an opaque reference.  If you don't, then
"lo'e <nonexistent>" has rather few properties, if any.

> Another problem of not making the x2 of sisku the object of the search is
> that it makes it very difficult to single out the looked for thing.
> For example, in a game of hide-and-seek, there is {le sisku}, and what
> I'd like to call {le se sisku}, but I can't with sisku as it is now.

I am now prepared to call for the x2 of sisku to become an "object/property"
place; I agree that "mi sisku lemi mapku" is too useful a case to require
convolutions.  Since the change to "sisku" was rather recent, I have no
qualms about retreating halfway.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.