What the *%$@ does "nu" mean?

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Lojbab:
> >> A "nu" event is a relationship
> >> and the x1 of nu broda is  thus pretty much the same as the x1 of du'u
> >> broda.
> >
> >Surely there is a significant difference? I know I claim that
> >many use nu when du`u would be more appropriate, but I'd not
> >thought the two to amount to much the same thing.
>
> The first "meaning" of all the abstractors is to treat the
> predication relationship as a whole.  du'u then relates this
> predication to the expression of that relationship.  ka of course
> refers to the properties that distinguish the relationship,
> allowing one to determine its truth. jei refers to the truth value.
>  ni refers to its degree of manifestation. nu is the "original" and
> refers to the manifestation itself.

What are the truth conditions on {da du`u/nu broda} and
{da na du`u/nu broda}?

Do all nu exist in space-time? (If No, then: Do all xlura, all
prenu, all pavyseljerna?)

I'm still trying to get a handle on what Lojban Central (and
Peripheral) think these abstractors mean. I haven't yet got
to the point of pondering whether the offical story makes
sense.

> I think that there are many times when the abstractors are fairly
> inter-changeable, though I am not sure I would feel comfortable
> doing so.  When we observe an event.manifestation we really are
> only observing properties, and in some cases (like thermodynamic
> ones) we may be observing quantities.  But if our perception is not
> of the properties, but of the event itself, we are justified in
> saying that we observe the nu rather than the ka.

You can no more observe a ka than you can a number. A ka is
abstract. Noone knows for sure what {ni} means: as you know, the
refgrammar is contradictory. I'm still not clear about what
you think {nu} means.

> This is one
> reason why I like the aristotelian event categories - it allows me
> to talk about how I an observe/perceive an event, and reminds me
> that there are other possible ways to perceive many events.  I can
> see an explosion, but can imagine the "process of explosion" which
> happens at a rate too fast to consciously observe.

Are these differences between the subtypes of nu truth-conditional?
The way you talk suggests they're not.

Anyway, I am totally and utterly clueless about what you think
the meanings of nu and certain other NUs are. Either their
meanings are really undefined (i.e. not yet defined) or they
are defined but whoever knows the definition has utterly
failed to communicate that knowledge to me or to anyone else
who is able or willing to contribute to this discussion.

--And