From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 15 09:59:55 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NrDdy-0007Eo-0f for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:59:54 -0700 Received: from mail-gy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.160.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NrDdq-0007Dp-1Q for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:59:50 -0700 Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so841993gyh.40 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:59:40 -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; bh=g1Tj3ZgEPYdqJC4YyfyeVBUwcX77RzECuJxx5iGEuFI=; b=Cz1xppjVd+Ms0vjixX8DHAuv+KKPRGC8XGM7gaTGbetOgF4XdLQzymp7NWvtkts/1s 2XRrI/P1j3x+D5JxufZpRw5QZaGC/51eqmr1NRB4P1ZMgygYVXNjyDvgZrANApcYArT2 xOzjk4v0EHRN1G0OyNEf6x2Ezq7sVqU/y3FLY= 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; b=Be+BxBjyRJ83aKXqioiA6xRja1GvrqCOnYn7vMKdebSnv1EwECUXaU0BKfDsQXdOcx 7QIBw8AlOdNdSKfsVSKwQcjBePf2CGVBW52J432RP5t6/XYORBjup8VXsmdvXlqa+v08 7lL8/3w0A+6CufyqCTzELBQjjf3r3nmjyfuHw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.128.9 with SMTP id f9mr6211906ann.186.1268672379380; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:59:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17561003140741o4dda967cn5da839d5f69fdeb2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003131245n23c64a7emfa56bccba3799045@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003131607v64d15ae1u29c42305e114c48a@mail.gmail.com> <201003132351.36353.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17561003140741o4dda967cn5da839d5f69fdeb2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:59:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1f1080831003150959g65a0df85ve65508bc16cbdb0f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c928858268c90481d9ce0a X-archive-position: 3005 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: blindbravado@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --001636c928858268c90481d9ce0a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So {jei} is exactly identical to {du'u xukau}? Or is there a semantic difference? mu'omi'e .latros. 2010/3/14 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > On Saturday 13 March 2010 19:07:15 Jorge Llamb=EDas 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 > > > > --001636c928858268c90481d9ce0a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So {jei} is exactly identical to {du'u xukau}? Or is there a semantic d= ifference?

mu'omi'e .latros.

2010/3/14 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Saturday 13 March 2010 19:07:15 Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
>>
>> (4) =A0la djan cu nelci lo nu jukpa
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "John likes cooking."
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "John likes to cook."
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "John likes being a cook."
>
> I think "la djan. cu nelci lo ka jukpa" means "John lik= es 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 woul= d 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 corr= esponding
>> 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 d= jan. 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




--001636c928858268c90481d9ce0a--