[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan:
> On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 04:43:05PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > xod:
> [...]
> > > In Lojban, events can "exist" without them ever having to have occurred
> > > (yet).
> >
> > As discussed 6 months ago, I think this is an odious & egregious
> > inconsistency in Lojban. However, if I pretend you were talking
> > about du'u rather than nu, then we can let this issue go unrediscussed
> > for the time being
>
> I don't remember the discussion 6 months ago. But I agree with
> And. The events-always-exist thing is a dumb hack, because we don't
> have sufficient gadri to properly support certain types of predicates
> (djica, nitcu)
I'm glad you agree. I think calling it a "dumb hack" is not necessarily
historically accurate, though, because the events-always-exist story
goes back a long long time, albeit with some equivocation about whether
ca'a nu always exist. (I.e. with equivocation about whether there is
something truly special about nu, or whether it is just the usual
stuff about implicit CAhA.)
> > > So it is definitely a leftover spoon if it's intended to be used in
> > > case there are any leftovers, regardless of there being any leftovers
> > > right now. However, in "need a doctor", the Doctor isn't wrapped in a NU
> > > clause, and worse yet, might be tagged with an o-gadri
> >
> > Yeah, but x2 of knife/spoon/taxi isn't wrapped in a nu clause either
> > That's really the essence of the problem
> >
> > Remembering back to 6 months ago, we found two solutions. One
> > ('propositionalism') was to change the place structure so that x2
> > is an abstraction. The other was to introduce a new Kind gadri
>
> Propositionalism doesn't really completely fix the problem; it's
> just a workaround
>
> mi nitcu tu'a lo nu mi klama le zarci
> Is supposed to be
> mi nitcu LE<something> da nu mi klama le zarci
>
> But we have no LE which can go there, and no NU for the something
> (except su'u, kinda)
If the place structures were suitably defined, du'u would work as
the abstractor. As for the right gadri for du'u, I will not venture
an opinion now. But anyway, it does seem to be the case that the
more we look, the more we find 'intensional contexts', and the less
satisfactory propositionalism seems as a solution. (E.g. I really
don't think the x2 of knife should be a du'u.)
--And.