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 Llambías 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.