Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 02:22:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711270722.CAA20418@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: What the *%$@ does "nu" mean? X-To: a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2411 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 27 02:22:55 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"). I buy this more or less, though the type/token distinction leads to some problems, as I'll hit in a moment. >So "re nu broda" is just as nonsensical as "re ka broda" and >"re du`u broda". It does not seem nonsensical to me. re nu broda cu fasnu seems to mean pa nu broda cu reroi fasnu On the other hand, I do not see much sense in re du'u broda, because I don't know what the x2 of the du'u predicate would be. re ka broda doesn't mean anything to me, but I am not sure that I deny it meaning because I haven't thouight about it before. >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. "Seeing" is a process that involves the brain, which is capable of distilling abstraactions from thesensory stimuli. In fact, we don't actually talk about the sensory stimuli that we really "see". "*I see X photons of Y Hertz impinging on my retina at an angle of Z". Maybe it is that the nu abstraction itself is the type, but the x1 of the prediucate is a token/instantiation of the type (whether or not that token "occurs" in reality or potentiality). Does that help any? >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} Since the statement "lo nu broda cu fasnu" works, then lo nu broda and lo fasnu have identical features semantically. It is a syllogism that lo nu broda cu fasnu mi nitcu lo fasnu =>mi nitcu lo nu broda lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.