Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:51:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711170151.UAA03632@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: `at least one ' vrs `one or more' X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2002 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 16 20:51:15 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la erik cusku di'e >>As a matter of style, I prefer to use {nu} rather than {zu'o} or >>{za'i}, because I feel that these don't add anything to the >>meaning of the sentence and they just complicate it, so >This was mostly an excercise in playing with chapter 15(?). In this >case more specificity wasn't really needed, I agree. My feeling is that more specificity for nu is never needed. At least I haven't felt the need in real usage and I haven't even seen a made-up example to show when it could be needed. Lojban has too many cmavo anyway, so I'm quite happy not making any effort to learn those four. >Ah. Actual events as opposed to possible/category-of events? >How far is the abstraction, in other words, from relationship to an >instance/occurance of that relationship, or from relationship to a >category of hypothetical events? Is that the root of the discussion? Yes, that's a good way to put it. {nu} seems odd in that it's the only selbri in the language that works unmarked for hypotheticals. (Well, I guess not the only one, {lo se djica} and the like would also be hypotheticals. But why should these be unlike mlatu, as And points out.) >[sorry I came in late.] Don't worry. Discussions in this list always come back in new and updated editions, and usually we learn something new each time. >I grepped the reference grammar to no avail. How does one speak of >hypothetical entities? That-which-doesn't-exist-but-for-discussion-is a >whatever. For example, "A duck walks into a bar" {le datka cu cadzu le >kafybarja}. i da'i lo datka cu dzukla le kafybarja Let's say a duck walks into the bar. [{cadzu} is "walks _on_ x2"] > I'm not talking about a real duck. I'm not even calling a >real object a duck. Could {le datka} refer to my non-existant, >hypothetical duck? If so, then {le nu} could be a non-existant, >hypothetical event, no? I think not. {le} may be used non-veridically, but that's different than hypothetically. co'o mi'e xorxes