Date:  Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:16:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711141716.MAA05894@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: Events & sisku [was: le/lo]
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1436
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 14 12:16:40 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

John:
> > We've been through this before, with me expressing the minority
> > view. But I still can't make sense of "nu" or "event" if
> > happening isn't a criterial feature of nu/eventhood. I think
> > it is beyond dispute that X is an event iff X happens. Therefore
> > either nu does not mean "event" or nus do happen.
>
> Well, if it makes you happier, construe "nu" as "potential event of".
> That allows sentences like:
>
>         lei bropre cu pacna le nu la rasyselmosra cu klamo'u
>         Jews hope for (the event of) the coming of the Messiah.
>
> to be true independent of whether the Messiah actually arrives.

I think that should be:

      lei bropre cu pacna le du`u (da nu) la rasyselmosra cu klamu`u
      Jews hope for it to be the case that ...
But anyway, your suggestion doesn't really make me happier. Or
at best, it raises a whole load of questions. Does nu actually
means "is an event-intension"? = "is an intension whose
instantiations are events".
Would these mean that "re nu broda" becomes as nonsensical as
"re du`u broda"? It would seem so to me.

Further, how come nu gets this definition, but not, say, prenu?
Why don't we define "prenu" as "potential person" rather than
"actual person"? I'm not clear as to why nu gets special
treatment.

> (Apologies for the ugly lujvo for "Messiah":  Grease-Befrictioned-One.)

I never knew that. So "Christ" is actually a literal translation
of "Messiah"?

--&