Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)

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

Carl:
> >> >> mi zanru le du'u melbi
> >> >>
> >> >> I approve of the fact that (something is) beautiful.
> >> >
> >> >No. "I approve of the proposition that something is beautiful".
> >> >
> >> >"the fact that" is better rendered by "le nu".
> >>
> >> So 'the fact that' is explicitly transient?
> >
> >No, but nor is nu.
>
> I disagree.  Transience (used to be) the _essence_ of {nu}.

What, then, would have been used for, say, modern {lo nu
da zasti} - "the event of there being something that exists"?

> >{mi jmive} is equivalent to {nu mi jmive} and is not equivalent
> >to {du`u mi jmive}. {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive} both mean that
> >if you examine the world you will find a bit of it which is
> >your life, a bit of it that makes {le du`u mi jmive} true.
>
> If this is true, than any effort I previously put into learning
> this language has been wasted; may as well just throw any lojban
> work prior to the book publication into the trash.

I'm sure you're exaggerating. But certainly it was declared that
the book was the baseline.

> I disagree that {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive} are equivalent,

What would the difference be?

> although I do see that they both differ from {le du'u mi jmive}.
> I can see that the predicate formed from {mi jmive} with {du'u} can
> unify with both {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive}; it could unify in some
> sense with {ka mi jmive} or {ni mi jmive} as well, since those
> are all aspects of the same base bridi, but the only thing that
> really _matches_ {le du'u mi jmive} is {mi jmive}.

I'm not clear what "matching" or "unifying with" mean. Can you
explain again?

> Now that I think about it, how does the {du'u} abstraction differ
> from the {brodX} gismu family, which construct predicates?
> Shorthand?

I forget.

> >> Is 'nu' now polysemous
> >> between 'an actual fact' and 'an event or [transient] state'?
> >> Has the language mutated that drastically in ten years?
> >
> >Only if {nu} ever meant "an event or transient state".
>
> Which it did, and still does according to the cmavo list,
> although 'event' has been removed from its definition.

I agree that events are transient. But it has been established
(and has never in my memory been contested) that "event" is
a slightly unfortunate term for what would better have been
termed "situation" or "s.o.a.".

> It's a state/process/achievement/activity, binding an
> unabstracted bridi (which is timeless and eternal) into
> time

That's still true.

> >Nowadays it means "a situation, a state-of-affairs", and hence
> >is much the same thing as "an actual fact".
>
> If that is the case, what is the need for it at all?

It's very useful to have an abstractor to talk about the
realization of a bridi in space-time.

You could of course use a lujvo:

  x1 is the realization in space-time of bridi (du`u) x2

- so nu is a shorthand for that.

> More importantly, what abstractor has taken its (vital) place?

You could just say "le nu ... kei poi transient", if the
transience really matters that much.

--And