Date:  Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:58:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711261158.GAA17724@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: What the *%$@ does "nu" mean?
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2640
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 26 06:58:38 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

No offense to Lojbab, but I find this statement from
John clearer than what Lojbab has been saying, & it
would be nice to know whether Lojban Central endorses
it.

> I think that "nu"s are the types whereof things that actually happen
> are the tokens, and "fasnu" asserts that a "nu" is actually
> instantiated:  "lo nu la djan. cu cinba la geil. fasnu" asserts
> that John kissed Gale (on the standard "ca'a" assumption for
> "fasnu").
>
> In any event, "nu"s are as abstract as "ka"s, "ni"s (on either
> interpretation), or "du'u"s.  I will mull this further and
> hope to post in more detail later.

Aha. I understand this perfectly. This was one of the possibilites
I had previously entertained.

So "re nu broda" is just as nonsensical as "re ka broda" and
"re du`u broda".

I can buy this characterization of {lo}, but I think we must
recognize that it makes no sense to say {mi viska lo nu broda}.
One can't see an abstract entity. It is as nonsensical as
{mi viska lo du`u broda} or {mi viska li re}.

Also, it makes sense to say {mi nitcu lo nu broda} if and only
if it does not make sense to say {mi nitcu lo fasnu} or
{mi nitcu lo cukta}.

Personally, I think it unfortunate that it makes no sense to
say {mi viska lo nu broda}. How *does* one say that one sees
a token of this event-type? Something like:

   mi viska lo token-of be lo nu broda

I really don't see what is gained by having nu be an event-type.
{xlura} is not a flower-type, and {gerku} is not a dog-type,
though {se gerku} is. Any context in which {lo nu broda} is
of utility could probably be equally well served by {lo du`u
broda}. E.g. instead of {mi djica lo nu broda} - "I desire
that there be a token of event-type X", you could have
{mi djica lo du`u broda} - "I desire that it be the case that
X".

> ni'o
> I think you are correct that in general the Lojban quotation words
> refer to types rather than tokens, although the notions "type"
> and "token" are problematic when one refers to complex objects:
> the token "John loves only John" contains two tokens of "John",
> but the corresponding type <John loves only John>, does it contain
> two distinct types of <John>, or is there (as intuition asserts) only
> one type of <John>?

That depends on your view of names. In Lojban there is just one
type <John> (defined as "X such that I am calling X 'John'"), but
in English (IM nonstandard O) there are many homonymous types <John>
(one denoting J. W. Cowan, one denoting King J. (who sometimes noone
spoke to for days and days and days), one denoting J. Baptist, and
so on). I'm happy to explain my reasons, but it's not relevant to
Lojban.

--And