Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NqTXo-0000FX-4M for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:28 -0800 Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.212.53]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NqTXi-0000Ej-VP for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:27 -0800 Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so205871vws.40 for ; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Kg8M/f2aondtOInONC+GnqEW/adc2SpM/Gsgi1IWq/g=; b=qSWtpMkdfIybwZ0BXj0KWrLdOpjVLuMI8c+MuF1pthKl4SA6mZggIryRGhNzOOw1fB VANDrZkyJXnzCF2EGCy/XE93WR2uUlBrJw4T7HnqFUQoiICe4Rav9CKaFswyLRfAM8h2 dLClw5i4fpdkGp9nXNdHQoYS+Zq8DNl9nH6WQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=DxGxA6lHR9uummNfUAikkf1X3NH7KIqGYYx0/+nnuS3bNpVjTHM3gLc8pMk5wEKv1H n8/opt0mh4/SNUVwshimQVbVF2WYKeoXtqPMveKP/+a18Vp7d0JaSMAT2OYoNiM4N0cO 6XTnWpCXOqWv9K+pSt2KbvpWrQ7sCrgB4oZuM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.122.74 with SMTP id k10mr211180vcr.43.1268495174997; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:46:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17561003130713o346dd22lbe1cb8cf25c66f1c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003130713o346dd22lbe1cb8cf25c66f1c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:46:14 -0500 Message-ID: <5715b9301003130746x7347e6a3u3c38970be7c55316@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d27e224e160b0481b08cea X-archive-position: 2991 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 6833 --0016e6d27e224e160b0481b08cea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You don't think events are abstract? I don't think I can see the event of running for example. I can see a man *who is* running, but the event itsel= f seems like an un-seeable thing. ta'onai I find myself (un-desirably) just using {nu} out of laziness. I really want to memorize za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e so I can start using them regularly where they might be more appropriate. 2010/3/13 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM, tijlan 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. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > --0016e6d27e224e160b0481b08cea Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You don't think events are abstract? =A0I don't think I can see the= event of running for example. =A0I can see a man who is=A0running, = but the event itself seems like an un-seeable thing. =A0

ta'onai I find myself (un-desirably) just using {nu} out of laziness. = =A0I really want to memorize=A0za'i/pu'u/zu'o/mu'e so I can= start using them regularly where they might be more appropriate.

2010/3/13 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@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 abstr= action.

The first thing I find odd about NU's is that they are 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 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, 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 thought of as<= br> 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:
>
> =A0mi jinvi lo du'u broda (I think that the proposition "brod= a" is true)
> =A0mi jinvi lo nu broda (I think that the event "broda" is t= rue)
>
> "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 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<= br> list, maybe twenty or so gismu. In most other cases you can use "nu&qu= ot;.

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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




--0016e6d27e224e160b0481b08cea--