Re: Events & sisku [was: le/lo]

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

Lojbab:
> >Further, how come nu gets this definition, but not, say, prenu?
> >Why don't we define "prenu" as "potential person" rather than
> >"actual person"?
>
> prenu can mean "potential person".  Remember that potentiality/actuality
> is an optional part of the tense system.  Without explicitly marking
> tense, the same Lojban sentence can mean that something is flammable,
 something
> is burning, and something is a cinder.

I have this sinking feeling that we have had exactly the same
discussion in the past, but I can't remember how it went, so
have to go through it all over again.

Anyway the sense in which I am others are using "potential"
is not "has not been but will be", but rather is "possibly
never has been and never will be".

> >But anyway, your suggestion doesn't really make me happier. Or
> >at best, it raises a whole load of questions. Does nu actually
> >means "is an event-intension"? = "is an intension whose
> >instantiations are events".
> >Would these mean that "re nu broda" becomes as nonsensical as
> >"re du`u broda"? It would seem so to me.
>
> I won't pretend to understand the question.

pRESUMABLy you agree that "re da du`u broda" doesn't make sense.
That's because there is only one proposition "broda", just as
there is only one number 5.
But does "re da nu ko`a cipno" make sense? Previously I would
have said Yes, it means "ko`a slept twice"; but now I'm not
sure, given what you all are telling me about nu.

> Does it at all help to view
> "nu" as  a union of the set of activities, states, processes, and point
> events?.
>
> re nu mi bajra
> 2 events of my running
>
> seems quite sensible to me.

To me too. 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?

--And