sumti raising reform, was Re: Chief logician?

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

We wouldn't want poor Randall to itch TOO much, now %^)

It was possible to make the sumti-raising (abstraction raising in arguments)
reform, and indeed we puut several tools into the language for this prupose.
For the most part it seems to be successful, in that we were able to decide
on rational bases which place structures needed changing.  There are always
going to be a few place strutures that are open to a little doubt, because we
are looking at the language through natlang eyes, which tend to be clouded
from recognizing raising.

People actually use the features provided, and with some surprisingly good
skill.  But there are errors and non-fluencies.  Still, Nick Nicholas, who
is the most fluent speaker of the language, uses marked raising pretty much
as fluently as any other aspect of the language, and seems to make fewer errors
than others.  The result is that we may not be perfect, but will have acvhieved
a major improvement over natlangs.

But we still haven't resolved a coupl of issues; e.g. when you want something
or need something (the starting point of the current discussion), you really
need to say that you want/need the event of possessing that something.

In addition, we did reform "seek" to eliminate raising - you seek for
property abstarctions, and not for things (with those properties), but some
are not happy/satisfied with this change.  My wife Nora asks, for example,
why "seek" is any different than "remember", "think about", and a variety
of other predicates which involve a mental object that may not really exist.

(When I say 'eliminate raising', I mean 'eliminate unmarked raising', BTW.

re negation: our terminology is that of Larry Horn of Yale, who is pretty much
acknowledge as the most knowledgeable person on negation and its intersection
between logic and language.  A strongly commend his book _A Natural History
of Negation_ to you.

lojbab