Of course, if you are outlining the steps of finding an answer, "pu'u" would be more specific than "nu". Also, are you really discovering the answer or just looking for one? In that case, "sisku" might be better than "facki". Also, Pierre, formally speaking, the X2 of facki is a fact (du'u). Not 100% sure "lo danfu" belongs there, although I suppose it could be.
--gejyspa
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Tuesday 19 July 2011 13:54:29 Ian Johnson wrote:
> But, I can give some of these:
> lo nu na facki fi le danfu
> An event of not finding [an answer to] the question. This says nothing
> about whether any finding of anything else happens.
> lo nu facki fi na'e le danfu
> An event of finding [an answer to] something other than the question
> This asserts that finding does happen, but that it does *not* involve the
> question
> lo nu na facki fi da
> This asserts that no finding happens (assuming {da} isn't already bound in
> some fashion).
I would say "(nu) facki lo danfu". mi facki le danfu le preti = I find the
answer to the question.
In general, I think that titles (of sections, books, etc.) should be brivla or
selbri ("preti" and "nu preti" are both selbri). Of course, some titles are
proper nouns, and should be rendered as sumti.
By the way, it's "reirbroda". "reibroda" falls apart. You could also
say "comrei", "reidza", and a few others.
Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.
--