Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:51:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712171651.LAA27808@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 3026 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 17 11:51:02 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Carl: > >> >> mi zanru le du'u melbi > >> >> > >> >> I approve of the fact that (something is) beautiful. > >> > > >> >No. "I approve of the proposition that something is beautiful". > >> > > >> >"the fact that" is better rendered by "le nu". > >> > >> So 'the fact that' is explicitly transient? > > > >No, but nor is nu. > > I disagree. Transience (used to be) the _essence_ of {nu}. What, then, would have been used for, say, modern {lo nu da zasti} - "the event of there being something that exists"? > >{mi jmive} is equivalent to {nu mi jmive} and is not equivalent > >to {du`u mi jmive}. {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive} both mean that > >if you examine the world you will find a bit of it which is > >your life, a bit of it that makes {le du`u mi jmive} true. > > If this is true, than any effort I previously put into learning > this language has been wasted; may as well just throw any lojban > work prior to the book publication into the trash. I'm sure you're exaggerating. But certainly it was declared that the book was the baseline. > I disagree that {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive} are equivalent, What would the difference be? > although I do see that they both differ from {le du'u mi jmive}. > I can see that the predicate formed from {mi jmive} with {du'u} can > unify with both {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive}; it could unify in some > sense with {ka mi jmive} or {ni mi jmive} as well, since those > are all aspects of the same base bridi, but the only thing that > really _matches_ {le du'u mi jmive} is {mi jmive}. I'm not clear what "matching" or "unifying with" mean. Can you explain again? > Now that I think about it, how does the {du'u} abstraction differ > from the {brodX} gismu family, which construct predicates? > Shorthand? I forget. > >> Is 'nu' now polysemous > >> between 'an actual fact' and 'an event or [transient] state'? > >> Has the language mutated that drastically in ten years? > > > >Only if {nu} ever meant "an event or transient state". > > Which it did, and still does according to the cmavo list, > although 'event' has been removed from its definition. I agree that events are transient. But it has been established (and has never in my memory been contested) that "event" is a slightly unfortunate term for what would better have been termed "situation" or "s.o.a.". > It's a state/process/achievement/activity, binding an > unabstracted bridi (which is timeless and eternal) into > time That's still true. > >Nowadays it means "a situation, a state-of-affairs", and hence > >is much the same thing as "an actual fact". > > If that is the case, what is the need for it at all? It's very useful to have an abstractor to talk about the realization of a bridi in space-time. You could of course use a lujvo: x1 is the realization in space-time of bridi (du`u) x2 - so nu is a shorthand for that. > More importantly, what abstractor has taken its (vital) place? You could just say "le nu ... kei poi transient", if the transience really matters that much. --And