From grey.havens@earthling.net Mon Apr 02 01:29:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: grey.havens@earthling.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_0_1); 2 Apr 2001 08:29:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 94569 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2001 08:29:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Apr 2001 08:29:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hermes.epita.fr) (163.5.255.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2001 08:29:13 -0000 Received: from ding.epx.epita.fr (ding.epx.epita.fr [10.225.7.13]) by hermes.epita.fr id KAA12580 for EPITA Paris France Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:27:00 GMT Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:33:08 +0200 (CEST) X-X-Sender: To: jboste Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Random lojban questions/annoyances. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Elrond On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >I'm not sure I can think of an example that justifies the distinction > >between "ka" and "nu", either. Well, those described in the Red Book seems sufficient to me. I mean, IMHO "ni ka" has got an useful meaning. "ni nu" has not. "nu" turns a predication into an event, something that has (or could have) happened, while "ka" turns a predication into a property, something that can be talked about, but surely can't strictly *happen*. > The problem is that whereas {nu} by definition > encompasses za'i/pu'u/mu'e/zu'o I do not understand how the bare meaning of "event" can encompass the meaning of "process", "activity" or "state". I probably have a different idea of these english words. Come on, even if "mu'e" and "nu" are very close, I just can't imagine how one could use (for example) "nu" instead of "za'i" and still be perfectly understood. I, as a beginner, was using "nu" instead of the other abstractors, until I eventually discovered (learnt) them. Now it seems natural to me to use whatever abstractor is needed when appropriate, and I thus talk about (e.g.) the lojbanic skills required while "pu'u fanva", my liking of "le ka le skani cu blanu", my anger at "za'i tatpi" involving me while I should be thinking about "zu'o gunka". If needed, I could talk about "le nu le skani cu blanu" on a planet (say, Mars) which usually has a red sky, or "le nu mi fanva tu'a la taliesinirkstat la lojban" which happened yesterday. While "le nu mi tatpi" happens from time to time, I usually do not think about it afterwards, and even if "le nu mi gunka" is common, I think about it clearly less often than improving (in the broader sense of "improve") "le ni ka zu'o mi gunka". Am I wrong ? co'o mi'e rafael -- While Linux is larger than Emacs, at least Linux has the excuse that it has to be. -- Linus