RE: [jboske] factivity of nu

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 03:56 AM 1/14/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > No, it wouldn't. I said long ago that the x1s of NUs are +abstract,
> > and you wanted to know what that meant. This is what I meant: they are
> > +noematic, as opposed to the x1s of the other predicates in Lojban,
> > which are (generally speaking) -noematic -- there are exceptions,
> > as always, like "x1 is noematic". 1/2 :-)
>
> If the BF were to find that CLL does not clearly prescribe your views
> on nu, and consequently calls them into question, would you come up
> with reasons why it is better that nu is +noematic than -noematic?
> I'm curious as to whether you do have reasons, though things are so
> hectic at the moment that actually spelling out those reasons might
> best be left till a future time (or till never, if the BF never
> considers the issue).

I have no idea what noematic means, and a dictionary definition gives no 
clue to me what +/-noematic would mean ...

BUT, there are a few gismu that were privileged in that we allowed them to 
violate other rules for choosing their gismu place structures, and this may 
relate to your question.

gasnu and zukte and ckaji and lifri (and djuno but it was given this 
property for a different reason) all are privileged in allowing one defined 
place to be a sumti raised from an abstraction in another. We tried at one 
point to eliminate all sumti-raisings from the place structures, but could 
not manage it. These raisings were deemed critical to the language. Cowan 
and pc and Nora and I at various times tried to come up with reasons why 
certain words qualified and others didn't, and this may be where Cowan got 
his answer. I looked at patterns, with the result that all of the gismu 
that correspond to abstractors have that privilege if needed, but fasnu did 
not need it. But fasnu and xanri then got paired as "special" at another 
point which involves possible worlds. I don't remember all the reasons and 
we explicitly did NOT flag them because other than for determining place 
structures we wanted no categorization of the gismu by "types of 
predicate". I do know that these tend to be the gismu that all the tough 
issues come up regarding, so it seems worth noting here, even if the 
details are too fuzzy (Cowan may remember more, so this may stimulate his 
memory).

Some of this may be recorded in early Lojban List history, but I think much 
took place by telephone because pc was not yet on line.

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org