On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:24 PM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail= .com> wrote:

If there are brivla having abstraction places where changing nu to du'u= can change the meaning then I'll change my mind.
Examples?

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:25:18 AM UTC+4, cliff= ord wrote:

I meant = only that, for economic reasons, 'nu' is a better (shorter) word th= an 'du'u' and that, if we get down to just propositions and pro= perties (propositions with holes), then it would be better to use 'nu&#= 39; for propositions than continue with 'du'u'.=C2=A0 Of course= , propositions would do the work of events as well and so would already we = up for 'nu' in those cases. If you mean there is a sharp distinctio= n between propositions and events, not really: an event is just a propositi= on being true and an proposition is just that an event occurs.=C2=A0 Minor = adjustments in the dictionary collapse them completely (and it is much more= plausible that all propositions are than that all events are).

From: Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com=

Sent: Thu= rsday, December 6, 2012 1:22 AM
Sub= ject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why no "about= " brivla?

Events in Lojban are indeed strange (in particular n= aive quantification over events *completely* breaks, which is annoying for = a variety of reasons) but I definitely think there is a sharp distinction b= etween du'u and nu.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On= Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:44 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Redundancy is good, but it is nic= e to look at the basics.=C2=A0 I think it can be shown that all that is nee= ded are propositions and propositional functions, du'u (which should pr= obably be nu) and ka (propositions with holes in them).=C2=A0 Events in Loj= ban are strange, because they all exist (or, at=C2=A0 least, are) but we se= ldom talk about their being realized or any of the usual abstraction talk.= =C2=A0 The other abstractors are even harder.=C2=A0 They involve two factor= s: intensional contexts (or, at least, marking places where some normal rul= es don't apply) and indirect discourse (which-- like direct quotes -- a= re intensional).=C2=A0 Some of them are of rather limited familiarity: the = sensual ones, say, which are not quite sense data nor even hallucinations, or the representational ones.=C2=A0 The notion of a genera= l abstraction is basically unintelligible and seems to be there for "co= mpleteness". Most abstractions abstract in a particular way (see the f= unctions on worlds reading for some) and most intensional contexts are gene= rated by predicates that allow such contexts (and occasionally require them= ).

From: Ian Johnson <blindb...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@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/z= u'o/pu'u can be straightforwardly achieved from inside, and at any = rate trying to make Lojban non-redundant is a counterproductive effort. Loj= ban is deliberately redundant.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

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

On Wednesday, Dece= mber 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= 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 &l= t;jbot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Officially, the most generic/nonspecific of NU is "s= u'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 a= re called
"abstractors" instead of something more acurate like "subord= inators".
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 ob= jects (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, t= here
wasn't much incentive to merge them. CLL lists "su'u" amo= ng the "minor
abstraction types", which already suggests it was never t= hought of as
the "general abstractor".

> Personally, I wouldn't find it particularly odd if someone use &qu= ot;nu"
> for a terbri which the gimste defines as "du'u" or other= specific
> types of abstraction. For example:
>
> =C2=A0mi jinvi lo du'u broda (I think that the proposition "b= roda" is true)
> =C2=A0mi jinvi lo nu broda (I think that the event "= broda" is true)
>
> "jinvi"s x2 is officially to take "du'u". Is &= quot;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 entre= nched. "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<= br> 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 t= he 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.
<= div>
This part makes perfect sense.
du'u/nu dis= tinction is dictated by the outer bridi.
But=C2=A0=C2=A0za'i/= pu'u/zu'o/mu'e distinction 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 les= sons).
This completely ruins the idea of the necessity of du'= u/nu distinction (after all many languages including even guaspi don't = have such distinction).

=C2=A0

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 <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} shoul= d 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 afte= r several people 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 djun= o a 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 it's co= rrect. What I AM saying is that that is how it is, regardless of whether it= makes sense, regardless of what the definitions of the various 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 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.
=C2=A0
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
=C2=A0 =C2=A0.i do c=C3=A0tlu ki'u
ma fe la x=C3=A0mpre =C5=ADu
=C2=A0 =C2=A0.i do t=C3=ACnsa c=C3=A0rmi
gi je s=C3=ACrji se t=C3=A0rmi
=C2=A0 =C2=A0.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 &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@google= groups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-be= ginne...@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 denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Sid= e! 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 yo= ur father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/0DofaH09d9AJ.