GLI Re: do all nu's happen?

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

Jorge:
> >Mind you, I'm still not sure. Is it crucial that in your example
> >an intentional agent is somehow involved: that is, if you start
> >to go to the market but don't get there, is the reason that you
> >can say "my going to the market began" that you *intended* that
> >you go to the market?
>
> Not really. Let's change the example to:
>
>             le nu le bolci cu farlu le loldi co'a fasnu
>             The ball's falling to the floor started to happen.
>
> ({co'a fasnu} = {cfari}, as far as I can tell.)

If x2 of farlu is the endpoint of a path that need only be
partially traversed, then this is not a problematic example
even if "nu" means "actual event".

But otherwise, the x2 of farlu must actually be reached, why
would you choose to say "farlu le toldi"?

>  >If we change the example from seeing the corner to, say, walking
> >the corner, or decorating the corner, then I would say that
> >(a) you could describe it as something which sort of has the
> >property of being a corner of a triangle, but (b) it would
> >be more natural to say that it was the corner of a square.
>
> I don't understand why walking or decorating would
> behave differently than seeing.

Because there's room for uncertainty about whether the thing
seen is out there in the world or in the mind of the seer.

> Consider these:
>
>             mi viska lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi
>             I see a corner of a triangle.
>
>             mi srudzu lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi
>             I walk a corner of a triangle.
>
>             mi jadgau fi lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi
>             I adorn the corner of a triangle.
>
> Would you say that, if I thought it was a triangle but it's actually
> a square, any of those are true? Of course, I may not be lying,
> but when I realize that it's really {lo kojna be lo vonselkoi},
> I would say that any of those statements are false.

I agree.

> >If we stick with seeing, and want to express that I thought it
> >was a triangle, then we'd be back to du`u
> >
> >   mi jinvi zei viska da le du`u da triangle
> >   "x1 visually perceives x2, concluding that x3 is the case."
>
> Yes, but not:
>
>     mi jinvi zei viska lo kojna be lo cibyselkoi
>     le du'u ky kojna lo cibyselkoi

I agree.

>  >> If you accept {le nu mi klama le zarci co'a fasnu} = "my going
> >> to the market starts to happen", even if it never finishes,
> >
> >I don't accept it, mind you.
> >
> >> can you also say {le nu mi klama pu'o fasnu} = "my going to
> >> the market is about to happen" even if it never happens?
> >
> >Yes. But these work only if (a) nu has John's event-type
> >definition, and (b) "fasnu" means "event-type x1 is instantiated".
>
> Hm. I thought you were arguing against my suggestion that
> if nu are instantiations of events, then not only intentional gismu
> required du'u, but also "happening" gismu: cfari, fasnu, etc.

I was arguing that, and still am. I agree that the "happening"
gismu can't just be rendered with "lo nu broda", if no da nu
broda.

> So, if nu are instantiations, you agree that the x1 of fasnu et al
> should be a du'u?

Yes. (I am here ignoring the possibility that nu is homonymous,
even though this is, it seems to me, the inevitable conclusion.)

> Also things like cumki (possible), lakne
> (likely), cafne (often), all would take a du'u in the x1.

Yes.

--And