Re: opacity

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@crl.com>]

I have borowed an ftp engine that presented me (with a lot of kicking and 
screaming, but successfully, unlike either of my offical critters) with 
the refgrammar files from digex/pub -- hopefully the latest set.

I hereby apologize about the abstractors, which were the subject of the 
first text I happened to read.  They actually look to be in pretty good 
shape as reported in the text; the way they get used is less comforting, 
though, so maybe the text needs to stress good usage more.  The only 
places I was really uncomfortable were with indirect questions and su'u.  
I think that Bob's note, to which this is offically a reply takes cae of 
the latter problem and the question problem is just (I think) lingering 
fear of leka malglico.  Of course, I think su'u in most of its uses is 
lazy, but then that is what most uses in real language are, so so much 
the better for it.

Refgram does need to deal with opacity and maybe it does elsewhere, in 
which case it should be cross-referenced at abstraction, where most of 
the opacities lie.

I still have ahalf a cause paper in the box and a start on an "other 
worlds" paper, which included opacity and all that stuff that JCB is busy 
screwing up right now (by the way, "under condition", if it is a BAI or 
so, will do a lot the counterfactual work).  

I think I am now back to more or less full participation, for whatever 
that is worth.
pc>|83