Date:  Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:25:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712051825.NAA25745@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      more on nu (was Re: reply to And #1)
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2627
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec  5 13:25:18 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Jorge:
> Lojbab:
> >Jorge:
> >>Now, something can begin to occur but never reach its end.  So the x1 of
> >>cfari should really be a {du'u} as well:
> >>        le du'u mi klama le zarci pu cfari gi'enai ku'i mulno
> >>        My going to the market started to happen but wasn't completed.
> >>
> >>I couldn't use {nu} because there was no full event of me going to the
> >>market.
> >
> >So what.  Obviously the completion of the full event is conceivable or
> >you would have no means of knowing that it did not complete.  So you
> >need the CAhA of unrealized potential on the nu to explicate the
> >ellipsis.
>
> Yes, I guess you may be right. So you would say:
>
>     le nu'o nu mi klama le zarci pu cfari gi'enai ku'i mulno
>     My possible-but-unrealised going to the market started
>     but wasn't completed.

I'm still not sure about that. I sort of feel that an incomplete
thingy is not a thingy, much as a fake thingy is not a thingy.

> >> I'll try to make a list of the gismu
> >>definitions that would need updating if this insight of yours were to be
> >>made official.
> >
> >It won't be %^).
>
> I know, but I made the list anyway. I was more interested in the
> scientific question than in whatever is decided by ukase.
>
> The list is pretty long, and it would include things like fasnu, cumki,
> lakne, which I'm not convinced that really work better with du'u.

Can we see the list?

> >In my opinion, you are merely seeking to define out of
> >existence the need for "nu" and replacing it by the equally nebulous
> >"du'u".

Not so. I would ideally have nu mean fasnu, and use it to mean
ka`e/pu`i nu only in the sort of contexts (e.g. x2 of pixra)
where ka`e/pu`i broda make sense.

> Not really, though that's worth thinking about it. But if I was to keep
> only one it would be nu, if only because it's shorter.

I agree.

> I think that
> we probably wouldn't lose much if we had a single abstractor
> instead of the overabundance that we have. That's because if
> one makes sense for a terbri, all the others don't, so the selbri
> itself is enough to select which one you mean. (I'm talking about
> nu, ka and du'u. Obviously when one of the sub-nu makes sense,
> nu will also make sense.) For example, the selbri {jinvi} requires
> a du'u in the x2. If you use a nu there, I will understand what you
> mean because I will simply interpret it as the only abstraction that
> makes sense there: du'u.

I agree that a single NU would suffice (though it's useful to have
du`u as an explicitly ce`a-less ka). But they have a useful
abbreviatory function, abbreviating "lo broda be lo ka/du`u".

--And