[lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"?

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> errr, lo'ai kukte sa'ai jukpa le'ai
> I'm always mixing those up for some reason.

OK, I see. In that case "lo nu jukpa" would normally be "lo pu'u
jukpa". I suppose that by "lo za'i jukpa" you mean "being a cook" as
opposed to just "cooking (something)".

But consider these:

(1)  la djan cu jukpa
      "John is cooking."
      "John cooks."
      "John is a cook."

(2)  mi djuno lo du'u la djan cu jukpa
      "I know that John is cooking."
      "I know that John cooks."
      "I know that John is a cook."

(3)  la djan cu ruble lo ka jukpa
      "John is weak at cooking."
      "John is weak as a cook."

(4)  la djan cu nelci lo nu jukpa
      "John likes cooking."
      "John likes to cook."
      "John likes being a cook."

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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes