Re: What the *%$@ does "nu" mean?

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

Lojbab:
> >Jorge:
> >> >What are the truth conditions on {da du`u/nu broda} and
> >> >{da na du`u/nu broda}?
> >>
> >> {da du'u broda} is trivially true, for any broda. It is like
> >> saying {da namcu}.
> >
> >Good. And likewise {da na du`u broda} is trivially false.
> >
> >> {da nu broda} requires a context to evaluate.
> >
> >You and I think this but John doesn't.
>
> Since I can instantiate "da" in all of these cases, I have a problem with
> this.

It's only a problem for {da na du`u broda} and, on John's version
of nu, for {da na nu broda}. You shouldn't be able to instantiate
da there and come out with a true statement.

> le du'u broda cu su'u broda
> lenu broda cu nu broda
> le namcu cu namcu  also li ci cu namcu

Noone has a problem with any of these.

> Now I can agree that, with the exception of  the latter example, the
> instantiatin is tautological, and that if tautologies could make a predication
> ture, no predication would be false.  But since I see meaningfulness to
> "da namcu" in terms of its instantiation

Da has no particular instantiation. {Da namcu} means {na ku
ro da na ku namcu}, so if you're thinking in terms of instantiation,
then da here is instantiated by everything.

> (and indeed mathematics requires
> it to have meaning since
> "Let X be a number" requires da namcu.

No. {da namcu} means "There is a number". "Let X be a number"
would have a different translation in Lojban, e.g. {la x. namcu}.

--And