Date:  Fri, 5 Dec 1997 20:23:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712060123.UAA11882@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:      Re: partial instantiations (was: Re: GLI Re: 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: 0011
Content-Length: 1369
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec  5 20:23:47 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

And:
>[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}.

 >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?

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

co'o mi'e xorxes