On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Pierre Abbat <p...@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. mu'o mi'e xorxes
