Re: do all nu's happen?

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

Lojbab:
> >> If that makes {nu do gerku} true if I can even imagine your
> >> being a dog, then sobeit: that's the nature of abstraction.
> >> We can still talk about non-abstract {fasnu}, so why cripple
> >> {nu} with the burden of reality?
> >
> >If think that the official story, to the extent that there is
> >one, would be as follows. Both {nu} and {fasnu} mean "potential
> >event", just as {gerku} means "potential dog". So your solution
> >doesn't work, but nonetheless there may not be a problem.
>
> I think that fasnu has to refer to potential or real events.  I think that
> nu can refer to any definable/plausible/conceivable relationship
> ven if that relationship cannot happen in the real world or other universe
> of discourse.

What is the difference between "nu" and "du`u"?

> As for involing multiple universes of discourse in order to make
> your idea of nu, and nelci, etc. make sense - I just don't buy it.

Well, I was kind of extrapolating from what the defenders of
nu in these "opaque" contexts were saying.

> If the context is the real world then "mi djica/nelci lo <unicorn>" fails
> veridicality

Only if {lo unicorn} is understood as {lo can-and-has unicorn},
but not necessarily if it is understood with a different words
from that selma`o.

> but Iam not sure that  "mi djica/nelci lonu <unicorn>" does
> (I can be argued on this specific example though - I am not bringing
> the kind of examples I want to mind right now).

I will continue to dissent, pending further explanation from
others.

> I have no idea what the debate is on denpa, not having been paying attention,
> but the discussion in this message is omitting the important x3 and x4
> places.  denpa not only requires that you wait for something, but that there
> be a chance of state or process upon the occurence of x2, from x3 to x4.
> There are ways to fill these places so as to nullify them (like x3 = x4)
> But there is no implication in denpa of either hoping or wanting x2or indeed
> that x1 is capable of cognition or emotion.

I had remembered "denpa" as "pause", but Jorge used it for
waiting for a taxi. Is that not appropriate?

> Nor is there a requirement that
> x2 actually occur, though there has to be an x4 that results if x2 does
> occur.

Can you give an example?

It seems to me that if x2 needn't actually occur, and x4 needn't
actually result, then you are necessarily getting into modal
matters, and you can't just dismiss the stuff I was saying
about possible worlds without some alternative account (from
pc, if not from you).

--And