Re: still on nu & fasnu...

["Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>]

> >Of course, if "fasnu" means an actual event, then what I oroginally
> >said was correct, and {lo nu broda cu fasnu} is false.
>
> Which it cannot be since that is the definition of fasnu and nu (both).
> This is an echo of  ckaji/ka and klani/ni

The refgram not only fails to claim this, but is pretty clear in
disclaiming it:

  "The following table gives each abstractor, an English gloss for it,
   a Lojban gismu which is connected with it (more or less remotely: the
   associations between abstractors and gismu are meant more as memory
   hooks than for any kind of inference),..."

This sounds pretty clear to me that {lo nu broda cu fasnu} can indeed
be false, with no difficulty at all.  This seems natural and useful
to me: the actual predication of an event happening via {fasnu} can be
used to give it tense, quantity, and other features (like reality),
while {nu} can remain abstract.  Of course, that makes a lot of current
uses of {nu} to refer to actual events ambiguous; but as long as we
define it as such, and further define {fasnu} to mean actual occurrence,
we can choose the level of ambiguity we want.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC