Re: di'e preti zo nu

[Colin Fine <colin@kindness.demon.co.uk>]

vecu'u le notci po'u <199904180218.TAA11099@netcom14.netcom.com> la
Gerald Koenig <jlk@netcom.com> cu cusku di'e

>Jorge said:
>
>>Well, if there is any doubt that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} means Ex T(x) &
>>N(mi,x),
>>then I have no idea how {lo} works. This should be valid for any predicate,
>>not just {nitcu} and {tanxe}. Besides, the reference from the Book that
>>SwifRain posted confirms it.
>
>Hi Jorge,
>
>Seeing this example that we kicked around so many times years ago
>surface again gave me so much nostalgia that I have to return to the
>lojban list for a moment to comment on it.
>
>>From the gismu list the x2 of nitcu is "necessity". "Necessity" is a
>noun, it is defined by Webster as (1) quality or state of being
>necessary; (2) Something necessary. "Quality" and "state" are also
>nouns.
>
>So if the definition is to be followed, only a noun or equivalent
>phrase can be put in x2.  I agree as always that  "lo tanxe" means E(x)
>T(x) where the x referred to is the same in each form, ie the scope of
>x is the sentence.  So we have: mi nitcu E(x) T(x). We have put a full
>predication, a compound sentence, in a slot calling for a noun. It's
>not going to work.

I think you are doubly on the wrong tack in this argument (which is not
to say that the argument itself is necessarily wrong). 

First, it is pointless resorting to an English dictionary to settle
arguments of Lojban semantics. If the dictionary does not support the
way that the writers of the gi'uste used an English word, tough. (Agreed
that this can make it hard to understand the meanings in the gi'uste,
but the only plausibly relevant authorities are the devisers of the
gi'uste and those who have since used and thought about Lojban. English
lexicographers are irrelevant).

Secondly, the whole point of using terms like sumti and selbri in
discussing Lojban grammar is that they are not nouns and verbs, and this
is designed to keep us from being misled by irrelevant considerations of
English grammar. 

You are touching on a useful and important distinction of Lojban (and
Loglan), but you seem to have it wrong.

In Lojban, by definition,
- the only thing that can fill a place of a selbri is a sumti
- one form of sumti consists of a gadri (such as lo) followed by a
selbri
- one form of selbri consists of an abstractor (such as nu) followed by
a jufra (sentence or predication).

It is probably also true that there is a feature, which one might call
+/-abstract (or kamsucta) which characterises every sumti; that this can
also characterise a selbri and be inherited from it in a selgadri; and
(more controversially) that some tersumti subcategorise for this
feature.

But the conclusion that you seem to be trying to draw is that a
predication is a different kind of animal from a(n abstract) noun. This
may be true in English, but it is not in Lojban: NU turns a jufra into a
selbri co ckaji lo kamsucta, and then LO (including lo, le and loi)
turns this into a sumti co ckaji lo kamsucta. Grammatically it does not
matter whether the selbri has an abstractor (a fortiori whether it is nu
or ka).

I think your point may be interpretable in terms of Lojban grammar by
assuming a further subcategorisation - suppose that some tersumti
subcategorise not just for kamsucta, but for kamfasnu (event) or
kamselckaji (property). You may be right, and nitcu is no doubt a word
where this question is significant. 

If this is correct, your argument is that nitcu requires a property and
not a predication or state-of-affairs. This is a possible position to
take, but it does not seem to me to be useful, or supported by the
arguments and usage of those who have considered or used nitcu in the
past. What is clear is that it cannot be supported by the choice of form
used in the English gloss.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  colin@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------