[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: still on nu & fasnu...
>> >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
>--More--
>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.
That's what I wanted to say, but answering And tends to put be in positions
where by hands trip over the keyboard and I say things I don;t mean.
>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,
semantically ambiguous is fine. Much of the language is semantically
ambiguous. We did not try otherwise.
>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.
Agreed. Glad someone can see through the fog of my thinking in the middle of
the night.
lojbab
----
lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/"
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.