Date:  Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:32:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711271532.KAA27324@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>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2022
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 27 10:32:17 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

John:
> > 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}.
>
> But perhaps one may observe an abstract entity.  I'm not sure.

How?

> > 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
>
> How about "lo sevzi be lo nu broda"?  One of the things "sevzi"
> means is "avatar", so "instantiation" can't be too far off.

Very nice! I only knew the religious sense, but I looked it
up, and apparently it does have the more general, and very apt,
meaning.

> > > 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.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to drag in names.  Very well:  in the sentence-type
> <The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick.>, are there two distinct
> word-types <sixth>, or is that nonsense because there is only
> one word-type <sixth>?  Presumably types should contain sub-types,
> as tokens unquestionably contain sub-tokens.  If not, what do
> complex types contain?

Ah: I see. I (and most others) would say that there is one
word-type <sixth>. That is enough to settle the matter.
There would be less agreement on whether there are subtypes of
this type, but I'm not sure if that's a question we have to
settle.

As for tokens containing subtokens, what would be an example
of that?

--And