From lojban@audry2.com Wed Jun 14 17:39:17 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13153 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2000 00:39:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2000 00:39:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO urban.iinet.net.au) (203.59.24.231) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2000 00:39:14 -0000 Received: from fremantle.perth.ilink (reggae-14-54.nv.iinet.net.au [203.59.77.54]) by urban.iinet.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA10603 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:39:10 +0800 Received: (from major@localhost) by fremantle.perth.ilink (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14542; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:36:13 +0800 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:36:13 +0800 Message-Id: <200006150036.IAA14542@fremantle.perth.ilink> X-Mailer: GNU Emacs 20.6. -*- mail -*- To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Event abstractors From: Major As I understand it la djan. cu pu cinba la maris. describes "John kissed Mary". I don't understand how this is different to describing "an event of John kissed Mary": nu la djan. cu pu cinba la maris. kei except that it now has bracketing which will allow it to be embedded into another bridi without syntactic ambiguity: le nu la djan. cu pu cinba la maris. kei cu vrude (that John kissed Mary is good) Am I missing something which "nu" does to the semantics here or does "nu ... kei" just package up the event for embedding? Major