GLI nu, dacti

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

Chris:
> Lojbab asks and Xorxes replies:
> >>You are claiming that an event is a dacti??!  I don't think of an =
> event
> >>as an object.  Indeed, it may even be to'e dacti on some scale.
> >
> >Events that happen certainly occupy space and last in time, so that
> >I suppose you're not objecting to the "endure in space-time" bit,
> >right?
>
> I'm dubious: for one thing, "nu" doesn't seem quite like an English =
> event; {le nu li ci cu zmadu li re} seems like possibly good lojban but =
> not an "event", and I can't think how much space or time it might =
> occupy.

If we take it as given that {le nu li ci cu zmadu li re}  is
good ordinatry Lojban then that already goes some way to
defining what nu means. Same even more so if, as John suggested,
that {le nu li re cu zmadu li ci} (or something else mathematically
false) is bad Lojban.

One thing we can conclude is that "nu" does not mean "event" or
"event-type". It looks to me as if lo`i nu is a subset of llo`i
du`u. lo`i nu would be the set of propositions that are true in
at least one possible world.

However, nu is sometimes used to mean an actual event. So
it is homonymous. There are re zo nu (which should please
Lojbab...): nu1, which means an actual event, and nu2 which
means a proposition true in at least one possible world.

--And