Date:  Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:15:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712081715.MAA12288@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: partial instantiations (was: Re: GLI Re: do all nu's ha
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 2224
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Dec  8 12:15:29 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Jorge:
> >[I don't know what the difference between ca`a and pu`i is.]
>
> Something to do with tenses, I suppose: {ca'a} contains an
> implied {ca} and {pu'i} an implied {pu}.

I still don't get what exactly the distinction is. Anyway,
the way I'd like to use them is with an "always" tense. I
would have included that in the examples in my message, but
couldn't find an appropriate locution.

> >It could be that a ca`a/pu`i nu is a
> >ca`a/pu`i fasnu, but that a bare nu tends to be understood
> >with implicit ka`e much more than is common with other selbri.
> >I think that would be the most conservative and best solution.
> >
> >As for whether it agrees with usage, it could if the selbri
> >with nu sumti that are not necessarily ca`a/pu`i fasnu are
> >suitably defined. For example, {nitcu lo nu} would mean
> >"x1 needs there to be in the world of x1 some counterpart of
> >x2".
>
> I think I follow you up to here.
>
> >But if so, then all the selbri that take a du`u argument
> >could equally well be defined so that they can take a nu argument
> >instead.
>
> Including djuno, jinvi, jimpe, etc? And also jetnu, jitfa, nibli?

I've not worked through every example, but jetnu would mean
something pretty much like fasnu. Djuno, instead of meaning
"x1 knows x2 to be the case" would mean "x1 knows x2 (nu) to be
in x1's world". And so on.

> >To summarize, I would go for
> >
> >(a) ca`a/pu`i nu = ca`a/pu`i fasnu
> >(b) always using nu in preference to du`u, except when there is
> >a relevant x2 of du`u, in order not to imply a spurious distinction
> >between nu and du`u. In other words, I would take {lo nu broda kei}
> >to be equivalent to {lo du`u broda kei be zi`o}.
>
> But how can you tell when the sedu'u is relevant?

By the same method as you tell when a zi`o sedu`u is at least in
principle appropriate.

> Besides, what
> happens then to things like {re du'u}? Are they meaningful, given
> that {re nu} is?

I still think not. So I would retract my claim that {lo nu broda kei}
is equivalent to {lo du`u broda kei be zi`o}. But I do think that
given that nu is used in many places where du`u might ideally be
better, the best response is to as far as possible use nu in
preference to du`u.

--And