Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Random lojban questions/annoyances.

From: Elrond <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:33:08 +0200 (CEST)

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