Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:02:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711141902.OAA10739@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Events & sisku [was: le/lo] X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1874 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 14 14:02:21 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: > >Further, how come nu gets this definition, but not, say, prenu? > >Why don't we define "prenu" as "potential person" rather than > >"actual person"? > > prenu can mean "potential person". Remember that potentiality/actuality > is an optional part of the tense system. Without explicitly marking > tense, the same Lojban sentence can mean that something is flammable, something > is burning, and something is a cinder. I have this sinking feeling that we have had exactly the same discussion in the past, but I can't remember how it went, so have to go through it all over again. Anyway the sense in which I am others are using "potential" is not "has not been but will be", but rather is "possibly never has been and never will be". > >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. > > I won't pretend to understand the question. pRESUMABLy you agree that "re da du`u broda" doesn't make sense. That's because there is only one proposition "broda", just as there is only one number 5. But does "re da nu ko`a cipno" make sense? Previously I would have said Yes, it means "ko`a slept twice"; but now I'm not sure, given what you all are telling me about nu. > Does it at all help to view > "nu" as a union of the set of activities, states, processes, and point > events?. > > re nu mi bajra > 2 events of my running > > seems quite sensible to me. To me too. Another question: if "da nu do bajra" is true even if you never actually run (-hecause I can imagine you running), is "da gerku do" true even if you are not a dogbreed, so long as I can imagine you as one? --And