[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > So for you, x1 is not the event itself -- the flux in the configuration > > of matter and energy that we call, say, 'sneezing'? > > Just so > > > > Its role are analogous to the role of ckaji, which is a meta-predicate > > > saying whether something has or doesn't have a certain property > > > > This is not how I had understood fasnu. Indeed, would the need for your > > interpreted of fasnu arise if you didn't treat nu as noematic? > > No, it wouldn't. I said long ago that the x1s of NUs are +abstract, > and you wanted to know what that meant. This is what I meant: they are > +noematic, as opposed to the x1s of the other predicates in Lojban, > which are (generally speaking) -noematic -- there are exceptions, > as always, like "x1 is noematic". 1/2 :-) If the BF were to find that CLL does not clearly prescribe your views on nu, and consequently calls them into question, would you come up with reasons why it is better that nu is +noematic than -noematic? I'm curious as to whether you do have reasons, though things are so hectic at the moment that actually spelling out those reasons might best be left till a future time (or till never, if the BF never considers the issue). --And.