RE: [lojban] ce'u

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Adam:
> la .and. cusku di'e
> > > I suppose that's a possibility, but don't true facts exist as much
> as
> > > events which happen? Would you take that to "fatci", i.e. that
> there's
> > > no distinction between a ka'e fatci and a ca'a fatci?
> >
> > I see a distinction between these.
> 
> What distinction?

A fatci is something that is true of the local universe. A ka'e fatci
then is something that could be true of the local universe and a ca'a
fatci is something that actually is true of the local universe. 
"X dies before X is born" is not a ka'e fatci. "I live in Paris" is
a ka'e but not a ca'a fatci. "I live in London" is a ka'e and a ca'a
fatci.
 
> > > Does "le ca'a nu
> > > li re su'i re du li vo" exist in spacetime but "le ca'a du'u mi'o
> > > casnu la lojban" not exist in spacetime?
> >
> > le ca'a du'u go'i does not exist in spacetime.
> > a ca'a nu does exist in spacetime, but (to my mind) 2+2=4 doesn't;
> > hence no da nu 2+2=4.
> 
> I think that this is starting to be a philosophical debate without any
> really important implications for the grammar, but anyway: In theory,
> anything that can be consistently described can be a 'ka'e nu', so I
> don't see why 'li resu'ire du li vo' is an exception.

This is indeed a matter on the philosophical end of semantics rather than 
the grammatical end. However, if the semantics of "nu" has even the
most microscopic resemblance to what "event" means, then a nu is something
that consists of a portion of spacetime. "2+2=4" does not consist of a
portion of spacetime.

--And.