Ah, that question. I note several more fraught cases of = "about" are missing. But, in general, why do we have the places we ha= ve? There are many such more or less similar places spread across var= ious predicates: "by standard", "under epistemology", "to observer", ...; w= hy not separate prepositions for all of these? The "about" place is i= nteresting because it invites intensional responses, responses that go beyo= nd the domain of discourse (this is a debatable point -- mentioning some th= ings may bring them into the domain) and beyond the realm of factual information. In the list given, the cases of "about" actual vary con= siderably in their openness to odd responses, so they do not seem to me to = be the same at all. Even intensionality aside, the various cases call for different arguments:= things, events, ideas, and so on, so that it is not clear again that we ha= ve the same notion in all of them.

And we do have {srana}
=

From: Jonath= an Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: "Abstactors/Subordinat= ors" was: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why no "about" brivla?

<= div id=3D"yiv2081447780">The OP of that topic was:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.m= y.name@gmail.com> wrote:

cfika
x1 is a work of fiction about= plot or theme x2 by author x3

ciksi
x1 explains x2 to x3 with explanation x4
cilre
=
x1 learns x2 ab= out x3 from x4 by method

ctuca
x1 teaches to x2 ideas x3 about subject x4 by method x5
djuno
x= 1 knows fact x2 about x3 by epistemology x4

draci
x1 is a drama or play about x2 by x3 for audience x4 with actors = x4
facki
x1 discovers x2 about x3

jdice
x1 makes decision x2 about x3
jimpe
x1 understands x2 about = x3

morji
x1 = remembers x2 about subject x3
=
And my question is

Why = memorising so many places when they could be replaced by a BAI formed from = a hypothetical brivla

broda =3D x1 is the theme/topic of x2; x2 is about x1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/3vlYgCwqkegJ.
= =20 To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-b= eginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://gr= oups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:58 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wr= ote:

I can't find the "about" part; what was= that about (srana?, third places of things like tavla? ...)?

From: Jonathan Jones <= eyeonus@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 7, = 2012 12:13 AM
Subject: = "Abstactors/Subordinators" was: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why= no "about" brivla?

Just because the nu/du'u discussion being held herein is a different s= ubject to the original posy (the whole "about" thing), I thought it'd be a = good idea to give it its own thread.

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, clifford wrote:

I meant only that, for economic reasons, 'nu' is a better (s= horter) word than 'du'u' and that, if we get down to just propositions and = properties (propositions with holes), then it would be better to use 'nu' f= or propositions than continue with 'du'u'. Of course, propositions wo= uld do the work of events as well and so would already we up for 'nu' in th= ose cases. If you mean there is a sharp distinction between propositions an= d events, not really: an event is just a proposition being true and an prop= osition is just that an event occurs. Minor adjustments in the dictio= nary collapse them completely (and it is much more plausible that all propo= sitions are than that all events are).

From: Ian Johnson <blindb...@= gmail.com>
To: <= a href=3D"" rel=3D"nofollow">loj...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, Decem= ber 6, 2012 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Why no "about" brivla?

Events in Lojban are indeed strange (in particular naive quantifi= cation over events *completely* breaks, which is annoying for a variety of = reasons) but I definitely think there is a sharp distinction between du'u a= nd nu.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:44= PM, John E Clifford <ka= li9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Redundancy is good, but it is nice to look at the basics. = I think it can be shown that all that is needed are propositions and propo= sitional functions, du'u (which should probably be nu) and ka (propositions= with holes in them). Events in Lojban are strange, because they all = exist (or, at least, are) but we seldom talk about their being realiz= ed or any of the usual abstraction talk. The other abstractors are ev= en harder. They involve two factors: intensional contexts (or, at lea= st, marking places where some normal rules don't apply) and indirect discou= rse (which-- like direct quotes -- are intensional). 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. 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 <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/zu'o/pu'u can be strai= ghtforwardly achieved from inside, and at any rate trying to make Lojban no= n-redundant 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 gleki <gle= ki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

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= 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.
<= div>
=20 To post to this group, send email to loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.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 loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.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 loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.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 loj...@g= ooglegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.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 view this discussion on the web visit https://= groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/mTyfv-b5xZcJ.

=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.

--
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 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.