On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:22 AM, ianek
<janek37@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 Gru, 10:43, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM, ianek <
jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think {nu} is good for describing relationships, rather {ka}.
> > When in doubt, you can always use {su'u}. I get the feeling that {nu}
> > is somewhat overused.
>
> {nu} is the NU equivalent of {lo}. It's never wrong.
x1 is [bridi] as a non-specific abstraction of type x2
{nu} is "generalized event abstractor; x1 is state/process/achievement/
activity of [bridi]."
That means, {nu} can stand for each of: {za'i}, {pu'e}, {mu'u},
{zu'o}, maybe {li'i} (but I doubt that; experience is not an event),
but not for {du'u}, {jei}, {ka}, {ni}, {si'o} and of course {su'u},
which is more general.
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.
Well, provided the extensive conversations *in* Lojban in IRC that I have done with other jbopre of very respectable proficiency, I feel obligated to mention (especially seeing as this is lojban-beginners, after all) that {nu} is not the default. A quick look in the CLL (or the dictionary, as ianek did, ki'e) will tell you that nu is the event abstractor. The CLL explicitly mentions that {nu} can't be used in djuno2, which clearly refutes that {nu} is the default abstractor.
Sure, {nu} is used in a lot of places where some might argue that {ka} is better, and that's fine; usage has spoken in favour of {nu} in those places. However, that *does not* make {nu} the "default" abstractor. It just so happens that it is probably the most *common* abstractor. Avoiding these types of confusion is important in a beginners list where members might actually believe that it is OK to use {nu} everywhere, which is what your message suggests.
ianek is correct, {su'u} is the default abstractor that is comparable to {zo'e} in that it is vague as to which real abstractor it represents.
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o