Date:  Thu, 23 Oct 1997 19:54:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710240054.TAA26707@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: The design of Lojban
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1255
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Oct 23 19:54:35 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

And:
>> Lojbab has said that he sometimes sees people as events, so
>> event Lojbab may yet happen to defend it.  :)
>I agree with Lojbab here (always surprises me when that happens).
>To my mind, restricting a tersumti to a nu serves only to exclude
>abstract objects like numbers, ka, du`u, and so on.

Well, I may agree with you. I don't agree that you can have
{le nu broda cu prenu} = "the event of brodaing is a person"
or {lo prenu cu fasnu} = "some person happens". In other
words, {lo'i prenu} and {lo'i fasnu} are disjoint sets. But I do
agree that in general, you can have places that can
be filled both with events and with people:

                mi viska do e le nu do klama le zarci
                I see you and your going to the market.

{le se viska} can equally well be a person or an event.
It is not clear to me why a {bandu} has to be only an event.

>Colin Fine once did a systematic study of the ontological
>nature of each tersumti of each gismu. I would like to look
>this up. Would anyone happen to know whether it is archived,
>and how one might find it?

Did he ever actually do the study? I remember his discussions
of the categories he would use, but I don't know whether he
actually went ahead with it.

 co'o mi'e xorxes