Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la nitcion. pu cusku di'e

> > All the
> > syntax textbooks I see treat "He seems to be cold" as a raising from "It
> > seems that he is cold", and if they buy a semantic deep structure, it will
> > be SEEMS(COLD(he)). If we acknowledged raising here, we'd say {lenu mi
> > lenku cu simlu} --- since there is no obvious difference between {xy. simlu
> > lenu catra .y'y} and {.y'y simlu lenu se catra xy.} Well, um. There is a
> > difference, isn't there?

Actually, you want "leka" there, since x2 is said to be a property.  This
probably eliminates the difference, but there may still be a question of
what is realis and what is irrealis -- I suspect not, since properties are
neutral on this point.

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> Only one of focus, which could be marked in some other way. I see what you
> mean now. I thought you meant things like {xy simlu le catra}, which would
> be an example of what I thought was illegal sumti raising.

So it is.

> You've now convinced me that {simlu} should be like {fasnu}, {cumki}, etc,
> but I guess there's little chance of that happening...

In a sense it is so, but it's raising out of a property rather than an event.
{mi simlu le ka catra} is a variant of {zi'o simlu le ka mi catra}, as it
were, which matches Nick's deep structure better.

> I was not talking about superfluous object places, though. I was asking
> why some places allow both object and event, while other very similar ones
> only allow one.

I don't think any answer can be given that will cover all cases.  Sometimes
the significance is different; sometimes the object meaning is an extension
of the event meaning; sometimes vice versa.

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