Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:55:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712021755.MAA24894@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: GLI Re: do all nu's happen? X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 3345 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 2 12:55:24 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Jorge: > >Mind you, I'm still not sure. Is it crucial that in your example > >an intentional agent is somehow involved: that is, if you start > >to go to the market but don't get there, is the reason that you > >can say "my going to the market began" that you *intended* that > >you go to the market? > > Not really. Let's change the example to: > > le nu le bolci cu farlu le loldi co'a fasnu > The ball's falling to the floor started to happen. > > ({co'a fasnu} = {cfari}, as far as I can tell.) If x2 of farlu is the endpoint of a path that need only be partially traversed, then this is not a problematic example even if "nu" means "actual event". But otherwise, the x2 of farlu must actually be reached, why would you choose to say "farlu le toldi"? > >If we change the example from seeing the corner to, say, walking > >the corner, or decorating the corner, then I would say that > >(a) you could describe it as something which sort of has the > >property of being a corner of a triangle, but (b) it would > >be more natural to say that it was the corner of a square. > > I don't understand why walking or decorating would > behave differently than seeing. Because there's room for uncertainty about whether the thing seen is out there in the world or in the mind of the seer. > Consider these: > > mi viska lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi > I see a corner of a triangle. > > mi srudzu lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi > I walk a corner of a triangle. > > mi jadgau fi lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi > I adorn the corner of a triangle. > > Would you say that, if I thought it was a triangle but it's actually > a square, any of those are true? Of course, I may not be lying, > but when I realize that it's really {lo kojna be lo vonselkoi}, > I would say that any of those statements are false. I agree. > >If we stick with seeing, and want to express that I thought it > >was a triangle, then we'd be back to du`u > > > > mi jinvi zei viska da le du`u da triangle > > "x1 visually perceives x2, concluding that x3 is the case." > > Yes, but not: > > mi jinvi zei viska lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi > le du'u ky kojna lo cibyselkoi I agree. > >> If you accept {le nu mi klama le zarci co'a fasnu} = "my going > >> to the market starts to happen", even if it never finishes, > > > >I don't accept it, mind you. > > > >> can you also say {le nu mi klama pu'o fasnu} = "my going to > >> the market is about to happen" even if it never happens? > > > >Yes. But these work only if (a) nu has John's event-type > >definition, and (b) "fasnu" means "event-type x1 is instantiated". > > Hm. I thought you were arguing against my suggestion that > if nu are instantiations of events, then not only intentional gismu > required du'u, but also "happening" gismu: cfari, fasnu, etc. I was arguing that, and still am. I agree that the "happening" gismu can't just be rendered with "lo nu broda", if no da nu broda. > So, if nu are instantiations, you agree that the x1 of fasnu et al > should be a du'u? Yes. (I am here ignoring the possibility that nu is homonymous, even though this is, it seems to me, the inevitable conclusion.) > Also things like cumki (possible), lakne > (likely), cafne (often), all would take a du'u in the x1. Yes. --And