Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:16:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712161816.NAA17469@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism) X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1213 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 16 13:16:42 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Carl Burke: > >> mi zanru le du'u melbi > >> > >> I approve of the fact that (something is) beautiful. > > > >No. "I approve of the proposition that something is beautiful". > > > >"the fact that" is better rendered by "le nu". > > So 'the fact that' is explicitly transient? No, but nor is nu. > From descriptions and > usage, I would expect an unlabeled bridi to be a 'fact': {mi jmive} > "I live/lived/will live", Right. I agree. > and abstractions to be modifications or > different aspects of that fact ({le nu mi jmive} "My living/lifetime" > or {le mu'e mi jmive} "My coming-to-life"). Right. But that's an abstraction within a sumti. {mi jmive} is equivalent to {nu mi jmive} and is not equivalent to {du`u mi jmive}. {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive} both mean that if you examine the world you will find a bit of it which is your life, a bit of it that makes {le du`u mi jmive} true. > Is 'nu' now polysemous > between 'an actual fact' and 'an event or [transient] state'? > Has the language mutated that drastically in ten years? Only if {nu} ever meant "an event or transient state". Nowadays it means "a situation, a state-of-affairs", and hence is much the same thing as "an actual fact". --And