opaque

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

&:
For shifts to other worlds, we need something in NAhE, as I've said
before
pc:
NAhE has the wrong grammar for the present question, which is
just about referential expressions in otherwise normal contexts.
NAhE is useful for shifting the whole bridi into Nephalococcygia -
- although I would have thought that the home of the usual modals,
CAhA, would do it even better.  What we need for the present
problem is a sumti-to-sumti function that projects a new point of
evaluation for the sumti inside, LAhE as ever was.
&:
I accept that in principle there could be a new addition to LAhE
that means "the quantification on this sumti does not belong in the
bridi the default rules would locate it in". This in effect is what
Jorge proposed virtually at the start of the debate on "any" - I
think he called it {xee}.
pc:
I guess we had to go through all this to get me to understand that
that was the point, if it was -- I am not convinced, looking through the
records of that year-and-some-long discussion. We need (in the current
depressing state of the language) some way to get opaque contexts on the
surface so that we can go unicorn hunting and the LAhE solution seems to
be the one that causes least hassle (except for my relearning cost -- and
everyone else's when they start to see what follows).  But this is a very
different (though related) problem from the "any" case, which was getting
out of acknowledged opaque contexts with terms known to refer into the
upper level world.  Yes, they are both "evaluate in a different world from
the obvious," but the direction to look for the appropriate world is
opposite.  And the vague xe'e (?) flag allows for uncertainty about what
world to go to when there is or might be a number of layers. Does this
mean more damned subscripting?  gaxfesti (Most of the "any" problems seem
to me to have arisen from the ongoing problem -- that will now get worse
-- of failing to note opaque contexts when they occurred or were intended,
using simple sumti when nu sumti were required in the old cases, now
failing to mark opaque sumti when intended.)
pc>|83