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

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Saturday 13 March 2010 19:07:15 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> 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)".

lo za'i la djan. jukpa is something that either exists or doesn't at any 
particular time. It exists when John is cooking and doesn't exist when he 
isn't. lo pu'u la djan. jukpa exists whenever John is cooking, but it also 
evolves along with whatever John is cooking, which lo za'i jukpa doesn't.

> 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."

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.

English grammar point: "X-ing" and "to X", as objects of a verb, are usually 
synonyms when both are in usage. The one exception I know of is "try":
mi troci lo nu kargau le vorme kei lo nu darxi ri
I try to open the door by hitting it.
I try hitting the door to open it.

> 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.

Pierre
-- 
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci