[lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"?

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

> So you object to:
> 
>    mi viska lo nu lo nanmu cu bajra
> 
> ?

Good point.  I suppose I can't really object to that for practical reasons.  It just feels strange to me.  I understand myself to be seeing a man who is running as opposed to the event of running itself.

> They might be as appropriate, if you like marking distinctions that are
> already inherent in the meaning

I don't like using distinctions that are redundant.  But there are times where I would like to specify that I for example {pu'u kukte} instead of {za'i kukte} and where I want to be more specific than just {nu kukte}

2010/3/13 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 itself
> seems like an un-seeable thing.

So you object to:

   mi viska lo nu lo nanmu cu bajra

?

For me events are spatiotemporal objects, and as such they can often
be seen. Do events have spatial extension?

> 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.

They are never *more* appropriate, since "nu" always covers them. They
might be as appropriate, if you like marking distinctions that are
already inherent in the meaning (a bit like gender and number
agreement of adjectives with their noun, for example).

mu'o mi'e xorxes