RE: [jboske] nitcu x2 (was: RE: RE: lo'ie != lo'ei

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > If x2 is nu, then what you need is for x2 to be actual. If
> > x2 is du'u, then what you need is for x2 to be true 
> 
> Quite so 
> 
> > The x2 can't
> > be defined as "nu or du'u", but it could be defined as "nu" or
> > defined as "du'u" 
> 
> Why not "nu or du'u"? If a nu is found (or equivalent such as le fasnu)
> then the "actual" interpretation; if a du'u is found (or equivalent such as
> le se jufra) then the "true" interpretation 

Are you suggesting that a single predicate can be defined as "... that x2 
be true or actual". I suppose that is possible. I had been thinking that
it would lead to polysemy, but with that definition it wouldn't. It's
reminiscent of the way apparently-polysemous English _climb_ can be
defined nonpolysemously as _clamber or ascend_ (the aeroplane climbed,
the snail climbed the lamppost, the monkey climbed down the tree).

--And.