Re: events

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Lojbab:
> And replies to Cowan:
> >John speaks:
> >> > I agree. {lo nu} means an event that actually happens. {le nu} can mean
> >> > anything, being nonveridical. Ideally we'll find a way to do
> >> > +veridical irrealis. I've just posted a suggestion for using {dahi}.
> >> Historically, Loglan/Lojban has made a distinction between an event
> >> "existing" and it "happening" or "occurring".  Every bridi may be made
> >> into an event, which then "exists"; the event of "my eating a hamburger
> >> for breakfast today" exists, even though I did not eat a hamburger for
> >> breakfast today.  This is necessary in order to use such things in
> >> opaque contexts.
> >That this has traditionally been the case is plain from established
> >usage.  I, however, feel that it would be more consistent with the rest
> >of the language if lo nu actually happens in this universe, since the
> >default for all other predicates is that they hold in this universe.  If
> >things are to remain as they are, {nu} must mean "is an event in some
> >universe", while every other broda must mean "is a broda in this
> >universe".  Still, the only problem with this is the inconsistency.  If
> >we want to talk of a real event I guess we can say "mi troci lo dahinai
> >nu mi klama", "I managed to go".
> I think I'm missing something here.  A bridi claim "broda" is of course
> a claim about the universe (of discourse).  Likewise "nu broda".
> A description sumti is NOT a claim about the universe - it is a way of
> talking about a relationship by reference.  "lo [unicorn]" is also not
> talking about something that necessarily exists in the universe.

"lo unicorn" entails "Ex unicorn(x)". It asserts the existence of a
unicorn.

> Why should lo nu [unicorn] be any different?

I don't think it should be any different. But in actual usage it is,
so I said the easiest thing is to let nu be exceptional.

> This just echoes back to the old "lo" vs.  "da poi" thing again.
> "da poi nu broda zo'u brode" DOES make a subordinate claim that
> "there exists a X that is such an event in the universe of discourse,

And a consensus emerged last year that {da poi nu broda zohu brode}
is synonymous with {brode fa lo nu broda} (though (for reasons not
clear to me) you & pc wish this were not the case).

> but the recent folderol seems to have led to this meaning more that
> we are defining the universe to be one in which
> such an event occurs as much as we are restricting X".

I don't understand you.

> But regardlesss how dapoi debates resolve, "lo" is +veridical but
> neutral on the +/- real-universe feature.

This has a certain appeal. But this did not emerge from last year's
thorough discussion, & nor from a similar one a year or two earlier.
In fact, judging by last year's discussion, what you say is false.

How about making a formal proposal of what you say?

> "nu" means merely that we are talking about the relationship as an event
> - as a RELATIONSHIP having (unstated) temporal properties.  It doesn't
> make any claims about universes or existences until you combine it with
> a bridi and then state the whole as a new bridi.

Under the present consensus, it is using {lo} as descriptor that
brrings in claims about universes or existences.

> "I managed to go" is most likely "mi snada lonu mi klama" where the
> realis is implied by snada, OR "[ca'a]ba'o nu mi klama" where putting us
> in the aftermath of the 'going' implies both realis and past tense.

Or, more simply, "mi troci lo dahinai nu mi klama", which works
even if we accept your views on the irrealis nature of {lo} (i.e.
+/-real). (Unless I've wholly misapprehended the import of {dahi(nai)}.)

---
And