Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:37308) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TgIgk-0003fV-W3; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:23:21 -0800 Received: by mail-vc0-f189.google.com with SMTP id p16sf3263567vcq.16 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:23:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=rxyS2FtI2fopwtRfGrvX672x7/MhRm2D06U1VCenxn0=; b=J/dhDqs7DLgJUNXNqpm2u5qlE3evhdogahQB/YzC/Vl+n23n2zYCL2Tdaqo5YY4kjj +8qBTYSG4RinSylro9bfba3q49RM22htUyXGUE9NuwdhA5aQC9ggLpkOifQz6sHFORI0 ArTbBXmFteBo4D+30awEG8oCdSVlbGXmTh60zJJDDXyd1CJDV9e0U7r7W2533fOnDoCL j7q1uw+zYCeJmOu4xkvZQMcUwsArG/lCyh/mMqdpi6VjAcSBjr2IwhdyX5+XpR7h6jaE xpzwHk4MEjwlBoobuZVtfn2UZfnn8Ciobhyj3qr7TcaDa1g1VyYw+9OOVIgQkg9gKXeJ P3Sw== Received: by 10.50.196.199 with SMTP id io7mr1008065igc.4.1354728188034; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:23:08 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.33.139 with SMTP id r11ls4284347igi.16.canary; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:23:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.42.194 with SMTP id q2mr999088igl.11.1354728186346; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:23:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:23:05 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <707bcf37-65b9-4b85-bef6-6b6fe9b71b23@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <33272af0-7522-44d7-a040-e451bf851595@googlegroups.com> <96205a36-c08f-4ebe-877e-112c22a5aefc@googlegroups.com> <5c52564a-f822-49b1-b8c9-745f53613b34@v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <50BF56A6.2010105@plasmatix.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why no "about" brivla? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2068_19617030.1354728185735" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2068_19617030.1354728185735 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:50:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote: > > It took me a bit of searching to find this, but I did manage to find a=20 > discussion that corroborates my statement. The following post is by=20 > .xorxes.: > > Subject: [lojban-beginners] How versatile is "nu"? > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM, tijlan = >=20 >> wrote: >> > Officially, the most generic/nonspecific of NU is "su'u"; but people >> > seem to use "nu" more often for the purpose of general abstraction. >> >> The first thing I find odd about NU's is that they are called >> "abstractors" instead of something more acurate like "subordinators". >> What NU does is take a bridi and convert it into a selbri, so that it >> will not be used as the main proposition but as a subordinate one. >> It's true that properties and propositions are abstract objects (as >> are numbers), but for me there is nothing abstract about events. >> Something that can be seen cannot be very abstract. >> >> As for "su'u" as general subordinator, it was never used that way, >> whatever its definition says. We can only speculate as to the reasons. >> One reason could be that Loglan had the equivalents of nu/ka/ni but >> nothing like "su'u", and people just went on with that. Also, "nu" and >> "ka" being just one syllable, and with such distinct functions, there >> wasn't much incentive to merge them. CLL lists "su'u" among the "minor >> abstraction types", which already suggests it was never thought of as >> the "general abstractor". >> >> > Personally, I wouldn't find it particularly odd if someone use "nu" >> > for a terbri which the gimste defines as "du'u" or other specific >> > types of abstraction. For example: >> > >> > mi jinvi lo du'u broda (I think that the proposition "broda" is true) >> > mi jinvi lo nu broda (I think that the event "broda" is true) >> > >> > "jinvi"s x2 is officially to take "du'u". Is "nu" for such objects of >> > mental activity / logical operation discouraged? If so, why? >> >> I suppose it's mainly tradition. One subordinator would probably be >> all that is needed, but the nu/ka/du'u split is very entrenched. "ka" >> is used for incomplete propositions, where you need to keep one (and >> in a couple of cases more than one) argument slot open. "du'u" is used >> mainly with propositional attitude predicates. It's a relatively short >> list, maybe twenty or so gismu. In most other cases you can use "nu". >> >> Notice that the choice between nu/ka/du'u is dictated by the outer >> bridi, the one that contains this one as an argument, whereas the >> choice between the four types of nu: za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e is dictated >> by the subordinate bridi itself. >> > This part makes perfect sense. du'u/nu distinction is dictated by the outer bridi. But za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e distinction can be achieved using other methods=20 inside the inner bridi (e.g. {mu'e =3D nu co'i} as tsani said in one of his audio lessons). This completely ruins the idea of the necessity of du'u/nu distinction=20 (after all many languages including even guaspi don't have such=20 distinction). =20 > >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Jones > > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:13 AM, selpa'i >> > wrote: >> >>> la'o gy. Jonathan Jones .gy cu cusku di'e >>> >>> Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not saying that {nu} should b= e >>>> the default, it just happens to be that it IS. >>>> >>> >>> No, it's not. You're wrong. Why can't you accept that even after severa= l=20 >>> people have shown you that you're wrong? You're providing the beginners= =20 >>> that this list is dedicated to with misinformation. >>> >>> {nu} is not the default, so it's *not* always right. You can't djuno a= =20 >>> nu, nor can you zenba a nu. >>> >> >> As I said, I'm not saying that I agree with it, nor am I saying I think= =20 >> it's correct. What I AM saying is that that is how it is, regardless of= =20 >> whether it makes sense, regardless of what the definitions of the variou= s=20 >> NU are, and regardless of whether it should be something else. >> >> That said, I do happen to agree with you. That, however, is not my point= .=20 >> This is not my opinion, it is the current state of the language. And I a= m=20 >> not the first nor the last to find things about this language that could= -=20 >> or indeed, should- be changed for the better. >> =20 >> >>> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i >>> >>> --=20 >>> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo >>> >>> do=E1=BB=8B m=C3=A8lbi mlen=C3=AC'u >>> .i do c=C3=A0tlu ki'u >>> ma fe la x=C3=A0mpre =C5=ADu >>> .i do t=C3=ACnsa c=C3=A0rmi >>> gi je s=C3=ACrji se t=C3=A0rmi >>> .i ta=E1=BB=8B bo da'i pu c=C3=ACtka lo gr=C3=A0na ku >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> --=20 >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=20 >>> Groups "Lojban Beginners" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.**com >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@** >>> googlegroups.com . >>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>> group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den >>> . >>> >>> >> >> >> --=20 >> mu'o mi'e .aionys. >> >> .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o >> (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) >> >> > > > --=20 > mu'o mi'e .aionys. > > .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o > (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lo= jban/-/0DofaH09d9AJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. ------=_Part_2068_19617030.1354728185735 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:50:20 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:It took me a bit of searching to fi= nd this, but I did manage to find a discussion that corroborates my stateme= nt. The following post is by .xorxes.:

Subject: [lojban-beginners] H= ow versatile is "nu"?

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <= jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010= at 9:52 AM, tijlan <jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Officially, the most generic/nonspecific of NU is "su'u";= but people
> seem to use "nu" more often for the purpose of general abstraction.

The first thing I find odd about NU's is that they are c= alled
"abstractors" instead of something more acurate like "subordinators".
What NU does is take a bridi and convert it into a selbri, so = that it
will not be used as the main proposition but as a subordinate one.
It's true that properties and propositions are abstract object= s (as
are numbers), but for me there is nothing abstract about event= s.
Something that can be seen cannot be very abstract.

As for "su'u" as general subordinator, it was never used that way,
whatever its definition says. We can only speculate as to the reasons.
One reason could be that Loglan had the equivalents of nu/ka/n= i but
nothing like "su'u", and people just went on with that. Also, "nu" and
"ka" being just one syllable, and with such distinct functions, there
wasn't much incentive to merge them. CLL lists "su'u" among the "minor
abstraction types", which already suggests it was never though= t of as
the "general abstractor".

> Personally, I wouldn't find it particularly odd if someone use "= nu"
> for a terbri which the gimste defines as "du'u" or other specific
> types of abstraction. For example:
>
>  mi jinvi lo du'u broda (I think that the proposition "broda" is = true)
>  mi jinvi lo nu broda (I think that the event "broda= " is true)
>
> "jinvi"s x2 is officially to take "du'u". Is "nu" for suc= h objects of
> mental activity / logical operation discouraged? If so, why?

I suppose it's mainly tradition. One subordinator would probably be all that is needed, but the nu/ka/du'u split is very entrenche= d. "ka"
is used for incomplete propositions, where you need to keep one (and
in a couple of cases more than one) argument slot open. "du'u" is used
mainly with propositional attitude predicates. It's a relatively short
list, maybe twenty or so gismu. In most other cases you can use "nu".

Notice that the choice between nu/ka/du'u is dictated by the o= uter
bridi, the one that contains this one as an argument, whereas the
choice between the four types of nu: za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e is di= ctated
by the subordinate bridi itself.

This part makes perfect sense.
du'u/nu distinction is dict= ated by the outer bridi.
But  za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e disti= nction can be achieved using other methods inside the inner bridi
(e.g. {mu'e =3D nu co'i} as tsani said in one of his audio lessons).
=
This completely ruins the idea of the necessity of du'u/nu distinction= (after all many languages including even guaspi don't have such distinctio= n).
 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, Dec= 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmai= l.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:13 AM, selpa'i <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:
la'o gy. Jonathan Jones .gy cu cusku di'e

Hey, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not saying that {nu} should be
the default, it just happens to be that it IS.

No, it's not. You're wrong. Why can't you accept that even after several pe= ople have shown you that you're wrong? You're providing the beginners that = this list is dedicated to with misinformation.

{nu} is not the default, so it's *not* always right. You can't djuno a nu, = nor can you zenba a nu.

As I said, I'm not s= aying that I agree with it, nor am I saying I think it's correct. What I AM= saying is that that is how it is, regardless of whether it makes sense, re= gardless of what the definitions of the various NU are, and regardless of w= hether it should be something else.

That said, I do happen to agree with you. That, however, is not my poin= t. This is not my opinion, it is the current state of the language. And I a= m not the first nor the last to find things about this language that could = - or indeed, should- be changed for the better.
 
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo je nai zo lejbo

do=E1=BB=8B m=C3=A8lbi mlen=C3=AC'u
   .i do c=C3=A0tlu ki'u
ma fe la x=C3=A0mpre =C5=ADu
   .i do t=C3=ACnsa c=C3=A0rmi
gi je s=C3=ACrji se t=C3=A0rmi
   .i ta=E1=BB=8B bo da'i pu c=C3=ACtka lo gr=C3=A0na ku


.



.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.= com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/<= u>group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.




--=
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i d= oi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )




--
mu'o mi'e .= aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu= do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/0D= ofaH09d9AJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_2068_19617030.1354728185735--