Message-Id: <m0rfR8q-00001oC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 17 Feb 1995 06:43:26 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      events
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2596
Lines: 47

And replies to Cowan:
>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 think I'm missing something here.  A bridi claim "broda" is of course
a claim about the universe (of discourse).  Likewise "nu broda".

A description sumti is NOT a claim about the universe - it is a way of
talking about a relationship by reference.  "lo [unicorn]" is also not
talking about something that necessarily exists in the universe.  Why
should lo nu [unicorn] be any different?  This just echoes back to the
old "lo" vs.  "da poi" thing again.  "da poi nu broda zo'u brode" DOES
make a subordinate claim that "there exists a X that is such an event in
the universe of discourse, but the recent folderol seems to have led to
this meaning more that we are defining the universe to be one in which
such an event occurs as much as we are restricting X".  But regardlesss
how dapoi debates resolve, "lo" is +veridical but neutral on the
+/- real-universe feature.

"nu" means merely that we are talking about the relationship as an event
- as a RELATIONSHIP having (unstated) temporal properties.  It doesn't
make any claims about universes or existences until you combine it with
a bridi and then state the whole as a new bridi.

"I managed to go" is most likely "mi snada lonu mi klama" where the
realis is implied by snada, OR "[ca'a]ba'o nu mi klama" where putting us
in the aftermath of the 'going' implies both realis and past tense.

lojbab