la .asiz. cusku di'eI'm sorry you had to write such a long post for what is going to be a relatively simple answer.
Let me start with a very specific issue:
The story is this: When I started translating Oz, I was still using {nu} with predicates like {troci}, but some way in I finally made the switch to {ka}. I thought I had replaced most {kakne lo nu} by now, but apparently there still are a few left.
It is good that you bring this up, however, because I want people to know that the intended form is indeed the {kakne lo ka} one, and anything else in kakne2 is a left-over from before and should be considered a typo.
I will list a few other predicates that I now thing should not use {nu}, but which I used to use with {nu} (please feel free to add cases where these are used with {nu} to the list of errata spreadsheet):
kakne, troci, snada, cpedu, minde, zukte, nitcu, bilga, certu, ...
(keep in mind, though, that I do make intentional use of polymorphism sometimes)
By the way, there are other uses of {kākne} that are more subtly related
to the issue. E.g.,
(10) {gāsnu ro lo se kākne be se va'u do}
Yes. Same thing as before, though this sort of case is why I kept on using {nu} with the likes of {kakne} and {troci}. I thought it was too useful to be able to say {lo se troci cu rinka lo nu morsi}. I finally got persuaded to change my mind, though, so this is no longer a sentence I would defend as being entirely correct.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:20 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
la .asiz. cusku di'e(10) {gāsnu ro lo se kākne be se va'u do}
I would adjust that to(11) {ckāji ro lo se kākne be se va'u do}.
I will change it to {gasnu ro lo jai se kakne be se va'u do}.Wouldn't "zukte ro lo se kakne be se va'u do" work?