Re: reply to And #1

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

Lojban:
> >Happening is essential to eventhood.  But not all imaginable happenings
> >happen in this world.  So we can define nu as an imaginable happening.
> >But why then is xrula not defined as an imaginable flower?
>
> xrula is a predicate which can be a potential/imaginable rather than
> "real-world" relationship.  Therefore the x1 of xrula can indeed be an
> imaginable flower.

You must be wrong, for otherwise {da (ca`a) xrula} would always be true,
even in a flowerless world.
Likewise, if {pavyseljirna} means "imaginable unicorn" then
{da ca`a pavyseljirna} is true of the real world we inhabit.

Most undesirable.

> >There is then a question of how to distinguish between imaginable and
> >actual events.
>
> Pragmatics (with general presumption of "reality" based on maxim of
> relevance, or explicit CAhA,

How do you use an explicit CAhA? I can understand "x1 reallyis/
potentially-is an actual-flower", but not "x1 really-is/
potentially-is an imaginable-flower".

> >  The objects of our desideration can be imaginable
> >events, but causes, for example, need to be actual events.
>
> Not necessarily.  Many an SF novel hinges on cause and effect
> relationships based on quite non-actual faster-than-light travel.

How would this work? I don't see how non-actual faster-than-light
travel could cause anything. Are you thinking of some kind of
time-travel, or what?

> >> >But {lo nu}
> >> >would be no improvement, for it might be that the taxi will
> >> >never come. Better would be "mi XXX zei denpa le du`u lo
> >> >plejykarce....": "I wait for it to become the case that there
> >> >is a taxi that arrives here".
> >>
> >> Yes, perhaps that would be clearer, although I think it would
> >> be too restrictive to say that nu could only refer to events that
> >> actually happen.
> >
> >I don't see why du`u can't serve for these imaginable events.  True a
> >du`u is not an imaginable event, but it is easy to define denpa as "x1
> >waits for x2 [du`u] to become the case", whereas I can't easily think of
> >a good definition of denpa is x2 can be an imaginary event.  Maybe "X1
> >waits for x2 to become actual".
>
> Whether du'u could serve is unknowable because that is not the purpose
> of du'u.

What do you mean by "purpose"?

> du'u is an operator that forms a predicate that relates a
> proposition (x1 - I hope I am not using the wrong term for x1) to the
> expression of that proposition (x2).

This is true, but not an explanation for why du`u would not serve.

> nu is an operator that abstracts a predication into a selbri with only
> one sumti - which is the occurance of that selbri, whether potential or
> actual or imaginary or whatever.  Implicit in "nu" eventhood is some
> kind of time-signature, which we classify with the 4 aristotelian
> subcategories of events, but "nu" does not claim which of these is
> applicable merely that one or more of them applies.

All well and good, but in usage where nu need not be actual, I
do not see how your proffered definition makes better sense
than du`u. Furthermore, I re-ask the question: how does one then
talk about nu that are actual events (i.e. fasnu, unless you
are also claiming that fasnu means "imaginable event", just
as xlura (according to you) means "imaginable flower").

> It is possible that lo du'u and lo nu could have similar semantics,
> except that lo du'u is used primarily to relate to how a predication is
> expressed or communicated

No it isn't. It is rarely used with explicit x2. It is generally
used as sumti of knowledge selbri.

> rather than to its existence and/or possible
> effects on other predicatable events.  This difference is significant
> enough to make questions of similarity in semantics moot.
>
> It is perhaps plausible that in some style of Lojban all of the x1s of
> the various abstractors could be replaced by the x1 of du'u, but I
> suspect that necessary information would be lost and have no desire to
> even contemplate the analysis.
>
> >> >I say "XXX zei denpa", because "denpa", like virtually all other
> >> >intentional gismu, is defined in a different, and ultimately
> >> >illogical way. The only solution I can see, if the baseline is
> >> >respected, is to abolish the use of these gismu and use
> >> >alternative correctly-defined selbri instead.
> >>
> >> Could you explain why they'd be ultimately illogical?
> >
> >Because logically they involve an embedded proposition, yet
> >syntactically they don't.  They mean "x1 brodas it to be the case
> >that...".
>
> I guess I don't see how embedding a proposition is illogical provided

It's illogical only if the embedded proposition isn't expressible
syntactically by an embedded clause.

> that the embedding is recognized to always be part of the
> definition/usage of the word.  We have some gismu that explicitly
> involve sumti-raising as well.  Presumably at some future time some
> Lojbanist should be able to expand the definition of "gasnu", for
> example, to render the embedded proposition in a more standard form.  It
> is USEFUL to be able to sumti-raise, and thus we can expect people to do
> so - so we prescribe both syntactic and lexical means to express such
> raising.  But the raising is marked and the logical structure is thus
> overt.

It is illogical to not have embedded propositions
expressible by embedded clauses, because there is then no
way to show quantification within the embedded proposition.

Most cases of raising involve two symti, one a clause, where
the other sumti also occurs within the clausal one. These are
irrelevant.

> >Another question:  if "da nu do bajra" is true even if you never
> >actually run (-hecause I can imagine you running), is "da gerku do" true
> >even if you are not a dogbreed, so long as I can imagine you as one?
>
> The former is true as a statement of a potential because I have the
> potential to run, though of course you need context to establish that
> the elliptical CAhA is that of potentiality rather than actuality.  The

Should we wind up this debate? You are flatly contradicting
yourself in the same message. Above you say that "nu" means
"imaginable event". Now you're saying it means "actual event".

No. Let's have another stab before we abandon the debate.
Henceforth, when I ask "what does {nu}/{xlura} mean", ask
yourself "what does {da CAhA* nu/xlura} mean?" where CAhA*
is the CAhA for actuality (I thought it was {ca`a}, but you
denied that).

> latter is not true (to me) because I cannot imagine a potential for me
> to be a dogbreed (nor even a dog).
>
> Jorge:
> >Now, something can begin to occur but never reach its end.  So the x1 of
> >cfari should really be a {du'u} as well:
> >
> >                le du'u mi klama le zarci pu cfari gi'enai ku'i mulno
> >                My going to the market started to happen but wasn't
> >completed.
> >
> >I couldn't use {nu} because there was no full event of me going to the
> >market.
>
> So what.  Obviously the completion of the full event is conceivable or
> you would have no means of knowing that it did not complete.  So you
> need the CAhA of unrealized potential on the nu to explicate the
> ellipsis.

In that case {nu} means "actual event". Just take all Jorge's
examples, insert the CAhA for actuality, and Jorge's point
still stands.

> >What's more (horror of horrors!) the x1 of {fasnu} has to be a {du'u},
> >otherwise we couldn't say things like:
> >
> >                le du'u mi klama le zarci pu noroi fasnu
> >                My going to the market  never happened.
> >
> >Yes, I think it makes sense to say that {nu}s refer only to realizations
> >of the {du'u}s that do happen.  I'll try to make a list of the gismu
> >definitions that would need updating if this insight of yours were to be
> >made official.
>
> It won't be %^).

It can't be: the gismu list is baselined. But we can make a list
of the gismu where we want our usage to override the baseline.

> In my opinion, you are merely seeking to define out of
> existence the need for "nu" and replacing it by the equally nebulous
> "du'u".

Du`u is not in the least nebulous. It means "proposition". We know
what proposition means. Usage of du`u is consistent with this
meaning. "Nu" is claimed to mean "event", but this claim is
undermined by both usage and the pronouncements of you & John.

> I have no more idea what it means to have an expressible
> proposition (lo du'u) "happen" or "not happen" then I do for an
> incomplete event to happen or not happen.

It means that there is some event or state-of-affairs whose
occurrence is sufficient to make the proposition true of the
world in which the occurrence is.

> But the latter is remedied by
> potential tenses that allow one to talk about events without those
> events necessarily even starting, much less completing.

CAhA are irrelevant to the definition of NU and gismu.

Now suppose nu really does, as I, & subsequently Jorge, have
been arguing all along, and as you are now coming round, at least
in the latter half of your message, to admitting, what does
{da ka`e nu/xlura} mean? What are the truth-conditions on it?
A fairly standard answer would be that it means that out
of the set of possible worlds that are relevantly similar
to this one, there is at least one such world in which it is
true that {da nu/xlura}. OK.
Now {da poi not-actually-CAhA nu/xlura cu actually-CAhA nu/xlura},
or
         le not-actually nu mi klama le zarci pu actually cfari

this seems like a contradiction to me. Your are saying that
in one non-real world there is an entity that is nu mi klama
le zarci, and that in the real world this entity is cfari.
But only events in the real world can cfari in the real
world.

--And