2010/3/13 Jorge Llambías <jjllamb...@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:52 AM, tijlan <jbotij...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Officially, the most generic/nonspecific of NU is "su'u"; but people >> seem to use "nu" more often for the purpose of general abstraction. > > The first thing I find odd about NU's is that they are called > "abstractors" instead of something more acurate like "subordinators". > What NU does is take a bridi and convert it into a selbri, so that it > will not be used as the main proposition but as a subordinate one.
Yes, that sounds accurate. And it seems to me also consistent with the gimste's description of NOI as attaching "subordinate bridi", which is quite the same as what NU takes (even "ke'a" in a NOI appears somewhat analogous to "ce'u" in a NU). I wonder whether NOIs too could be called "subordinators". >> Personally, I wouldn't find it particularly odd if someone use "nu" >> for a terbri which the gimste defines as "du'u" or other specific >> types of abstraction. For example: >> >> mi jinvi lo du'u broda (I think that the proposition "broda" is true) >> mi jinvi lo nu broda (I think that the event "broda" is true) >> >> "jinvi"s x2 is officially to take "du'u". Is "nu" for such objects of >> mental activity / logical operation discouraged? If so, why? > > I suppose it's mainly tradition. One subordinator would probably be > all that is needed, but the nu/ka/du'u split is very entrenched. "ka" > is used for incomplete propositions, where you need to keep one (and > in a couple of cases more than one) argument slot open. "ce'u" is defined as: pseudo-quantifier binding a variable within an abstraction that represents an open place Does that not allow its usage with a non-ka subordinator, in which case "nu" and "du'u" too could be used for incomplete bridi?
