From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Mar 14 07:42:43 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqp1Z-0002gg-L3 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:42:39 -0700 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqp0v-0002b6-9Q for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:42:25 -0700 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so2598376bwz.26 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:41:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6kx20OMCVH3HkZba2zVZGEdTvYIQ3PYZfeUR7UqtGFs=; b=NV2jc5Ie8o+eq/roy7nZ4thAItZQRAcF6wFENOrPtwnl3mcULocheMJtpcB6Lc05F7 5EMNqQ/S9q0nj856rHWgZ0QJJ45FOcRLdI7/brmK49c586iNshXIqzJnqE/5dk7ueQgh 7202sJ/SoF0xaUt/yujFSNH+eVKNU+ENA6iXw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Fl4n2Ub68403cedQL4hsdIZ01hDncX54iDTmYMagYU/Logs3EOn/U+cE0ehCaeGxEv W3hNqhsofuSJXMnDJms0HxkB85hT+uizilRmdHxIjwQ87Atzzhn4aDFZY/GC/2s4Vnku XsfRC66tFLEz4al953iAFxA6XEuD4wdLt5KhU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.16.82 with SMTP id n18mr4057791bka.109.1268577709676; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:41:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201003132351.36353.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003131245n23c64a7emfa56bccba3799045@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003131607v64d15ae1u29c42305e114c48a@mail.gmail.com> <201003132351.36353.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:41:49 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561003140741o4dda967cn5da839d5f69fdeb2@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 3002 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Saturday 13 March 2010 19:07:15 Jorge Llambías wrote: >> >> (4)  la djan cu nelci lo nu jukpa >>       "John likes cooking." >>       "John likes to cook." >>       "John likes being a cook." > > I think "la djan. cu nelci lo ka jukpa" means "John likes being a cook", > whereas "la djan. cu nelci lo nu jukpa" means the other two, which are > synonyms. I think "la djan cu nelci lo ka jukpa" is a bit like "la djan nelci li ze". I suppose it is possible to like a property, just as it is possible to like the number seven, but it is not the same as liking having that property. >> Presumably you could distinguish "la djan cu nelci lo pu'u jukpa" from >> "la djan cu nelci lo za'i jukpa", so in (4) you would have the option >> to specify different types of "nu". But in (1), (2), and (3) you don't >> have the corresponding options. So if the subtypes of nu are so >> important, how come du'u and ka don't come with their corresponding >> subtypes, and how come you can't make the same distinction at the main >> bridi level? It just seems to me that the za'i/zu'o/pu'u/mu'e split of >> "nu" is not that useful, and if it was useful, it's made in the wrong >> place. > > I'd say that "jei" is a subtype of "du'u". "mi djuno le du'u la djan. jukpa" > implies "la djan. jukpa", whereas "mi djuno le jei la djan. jukpa" doesn't. Yes, "jei" is "du'u xukau". Last night a silly idea came to me as to how to get the aktionsart types for "du'u" and "ka": "du'u je za'i", "du'u je zu'o", "du'u je pu'u", etc. I shouldn't really mention that, lest someone take it seriously and run with it, but it is in fact grammatical. That still leaves the main bridi case though. mu'o mi'e xorxes