Re: [lojban] RE: NU

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/2/2001 1:11:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<I'm not sure that your understanding of {mu'e} agrees with the
explanation given in the book. I don't doubt that yours fits
closer to the standard meaning of "achievment", but in Lojbanic
lore technical terms tend to wander off into whole new meanings.
I think that according to Book-Lojban {le mu'e mi ciska} cannot
be taken to mean {le nu mi co'a ciska} or {le nu mi mu'o ciska}.
{pu le mu'e mi ciska} would have to be before my whole writing,
taken as a point event, never as a reference to one specific
point of the writing event.>

Right-- I forgot to check the Book, relying on memory (always a mistake in my
case) of the discussion around these topics earlier -- and the parallelism of
the other NU with the event classification from Aristotle.  I should remember
about wandering vocabulary (metaphor, epistemology,...).  Lord knows it comes
up often enough.

<I guess I can imagine subtle distinctions there, but for example
I don't think that {za'i} introduces the idea of profession that
the English "writer" has>
Not neceessarily intended here: this could be a five-year old referring to
last year, when he had to ask his sister (yuck!) to write to Santa Claus for
him.

<And the {se ciska} is implied in all
three cases, you can talk about {le zu'o mi ciska le vi cukta}
as well as {le pu'u mi ciska le vi cukta}. (We are using {ciska}
where we should be using {finti}, I now realize.)>

True, but typically what is {se ciska} would be different -- a particular ms
(or whatever) in a process, inscriptions generally in an activity-- and even
moreso in a state.  The event type is more efficient that adding {le cukta}
or {lo cukta} (or {se ciska} throughout).  And why {finti}, not just {ciska}?
Even the deviser of a plot et al has to get it down on paper or whatever
before it is a book.  (metonymy)  

<le ka le tsani be ce'u cu blanu>
Someday I'll forget enough 76 Loglan to learn Lojban.