Re: Events & sisku [was: le/lo]

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

John reply to a message from Jorge that I've not received:
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
>
> > Yes, perhaps that would be clearer, although I think it would
> > be too restrictive to say that nu could only refer to events that
> > actually happen.
>
> Indeed.  Events don't have to happen, although it has to be
> *logically possible* for them to happen, I think; there is
> no "lo nu li re su'i re du li mu".

We've been through this before, with me expressing the minority
view. But I still can't make sense of "nu" or "event" if
happening isn't a criterial feature of nu/eventhood. I think
it is beyond dispute that X is an event iff X happens. Therefore
either nu does not mean "event" or nus do happen.

I am not of course denying the possibility of imaginary events,
any more than I would want to deny the possibility of imaginary
cats and dogs. But that is beside the point.

> > I wouldn't know how I would say "I'm looking for my hat"
> > with the new definition, if I wore one.
>
>         mi sisku le ka [ce'u] du le mapku po mi
>         I look-for-thing-with-property the property-of being
>                 the hat belonging-to me.

Or use a lujvo based on sisku.

My problem with the fix to sisku is that it was made only to
sisku, whereas all the other gismu with the same problem
(e.g. nitcu) were left unaltered.

--And