I meant only that, fo= r economic reasons, 'nu' is a better (shorter) word than 'du'u' and that, i= f we get down to just propositions and properties (propositions with holes)= , then it would be better to use 'nu' for propositions than continue with '= du'u'. Of course, propositions would do the work of events as well an= d so would already we up for 'nu' in those cases. If you mean there is a sh= arp distinction between propositions and events, not really: an event is ju= st a proposition being true and an proposition is just that an event occurs= . Minor adjustments in the dictionary collapse them completely (and i= t is much more plausible that all propositions are than that all events are= ).

= From: Ian Johnson <blin= dbravado@gmail.com>
To:= lojban@googlegroups.com
Sen= t: Thursday, December 6, 2012 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re:= Why no "about" brivla?

Events in Lojban are indeed strange (in particula= r naive quantification over events *completely* breaks, which is annoying f= or a variety of reasons) but I definitely think there is a sharp distinctio= n between du'u and nu.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On = Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:44 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote= :

Redundancy is goo= d, but it is nice to look at the basics. I think it can be shown that= all that is needed are propositions and propositional functions, du'u (whi= ch should probably be nu) and ka (propositions with holes in them). E= vents in Lojban are strange, because they all exist (or, at least, ar= e) but we seldom talk about their being realized or any of the usual abstra= ction talk. The other abstractors are even harder. They involve= two factors: intensional contexts (or, at least, marking places where some= normal rules don't apply) and indirect discourse (which-- like direct quot= es -- are intensional). Some of them are of rather limited familiarit= y: the sensual ones, say, which are not quite sense data nor even hallucinations, or the representational ones. The notion of a genera= l abstraction is basically unintelligible and seems to be there for "complet= eness". Most abstractions abstract in a particular way (see the functions o= n worlds reading for some) and most intensional contexts are generated by p= redicates that allow such contexts (and occasionally require them).

From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
= To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December = 5, 2012 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why no "about" brivla?

I don't think the distinction between za'i/zu'o/pu'u can be straightfo= rwardly achieved from inside, and at any rate trying to make Lojban non-red= undant is a counterproductive effort. Lojban is deliberately redundant.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM, la gl= eki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:50:20 PM UTC+4, aio= nys wrote:

It took me a bit of searching to find this, but I did manage to find a= discussion that corroborates my statement. The following post is by .xorxe= s.:

Subject: [lojban-beginners] How 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 &= lt;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.
<= div>
This part makes perfect sense.
du'u/nu distinc= tion is dictated by the outer bridi.
But za'i/pu'u/zu'= o/mu'e distinction can be achieved using other methods inside the inner bri= di

(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 distinc= tion (after all many languages including even guaspi don't have such distin= ction).

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:31= AM, Jonathan Jones <eye= ...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:13 AM, selpa'i &l= t;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://gr= oups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

=

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

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

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

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

--
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/-/0DofaH09d9AJ.

=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.