From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon Aug 20 15:59:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 20 Aug 2001 22:59:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 54125 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2001 22:58:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2001 22:58:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta2 with SMTP; 20 Aug 2001 22:58:54 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-77.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.77]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06787 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:58:52 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15Yy0A-0000V5-00 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:58:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:58:34 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Brochure updates Message-ID: <20010820185834.A1902@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 01:27:49PM -0700, Nick NICHOLAS wrote: > To me, please. There should be nothing controversial in the brochure, and > anything controversial in the lessons should have bled into the list by > now. So there's no pressing need for them to show up here. I must admit I haven't looked much at the lessons until now. I see something which I would consider controversial - the lessons say, in chapter 7, that it's incorrect to use {nu} where you should use {du'u}. I was fairly sure that {du'u} is a specific type of {nu}, and in fact the only abstractions which can't be blanketed under {nu} are {ka}, {jei}, and {ni}. {nu} is defined as "generalized event abstractor: x1 is state/process/achievement/activity of [bridi]". Wouldn't "state" encompass {du'u}? -- Rob Speer