Date:  Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:11:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711142311.SAA21464@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      do all nu's happen?
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 1364
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 14 18:12:02 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

And:
 >I don't see why du`u can't serve for these imaginable events.
>True a du`u is not an imaginable event, but it is easy to
>define denpa as "x1 waits for x2 [du`u] to become the case",
>whereas I can't easily think of a good definition of denpa
>is x2 can be an imaginary event. Maybe "X1 waits for x2 to
>become actual".

I think you are convincing me (again!) that you're right.

But it is not only intentional gismu that would be affected.
Consider for example

cfari: x1 [state/event/process] commences/initiates/starts/begins to occur;

Now, something can begin to occur but never reach its end. So the
x1 of cfari should really be a {du'u} as well:

                le du'u mi klama le zarci pu cfari gi'enai ku'i mulno
                My going to the market started to happen but wasn't
completed.

I couldn't use {nu} because there was no full event of me going to the
market.

What's more (horror of horrors!) the x1 of {fasnu} has to be a {du'u},
otherwise we couldn't say things like:

                le du'u mi klama le zarci pu noroi fasnu
                My going to the market  never happened.

 Yes, I think it makes sense to say that {nu}s refer only to
realizations of the {du'u}s that do happen. I'll try to make a list
of the gismu definitions that would need updating if this insight
of yours were to be made official.

co'o mi'e xorxes