Message-Id: <199502160225.AA21654@nfs1.digex.net>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed Feb 15 21:25:37 1995
Subject:      Re: Existence and occurrence of events (was: ago24 & replies)
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 15 21:25:37 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu

John speaks:
> > I agree. {lo nu} means an event that actually happens. {le nu} can mean
> > anything, being nonveridical. Ideally we'll find a way to do
> > +veridical irrealis. I've just posted a suggestion for using {dahi}.
> Historically, Loglan/Lojban has made a distinction between an event "existing"
> and it "happening" or "occurring".  Every bridi may be made into an event,
> which then "exists"; the event of "my eating a hamburger for breakfast today"
> exists, even though I did not eat a hamburger for breakfast today.  This is
> necessary in order to use such things in opaque contexts.

That this has traditionally been the case is plain from established
usage. I, however, feel that it would be more consistent with the
rest of the language if lo nu actually happens in this universe, since
the default for all other predicates is that they hold in this universe.
If things are to remain as they are, {nu} must mean "is an event in
some universe", while every other broda must mean "is a broda in this
universe". Still, the only problem with this is the inconsistency.
If we want to talk of a real event I guess we can say "mi troci
lo dahinai nu mi klama", "I managed to go".
I suppose it will be preferred that the inconsistency remain, in
order not to invalidate current usage.

---
And