Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Logical Language Group wrote:

> You mean ce'u, I assume.   But NO I do not.  To put ce'u in there
> (unless I put it in all places) is to focus on a particular place as
> significant to my apporval.  The statement is NOT that I approve of
> the property of beautiful things or the property of people appreciating
> beautiful things or the property of  aspects leading to appreciation of
> beauty or the property of aesthetic standards being used for such recognition
> of beauty.

The respective "le ka ... ce'u" forms actually mean:

	le ka fa ce'u melbi: the property of being beautiful
	le ka fe ce'u melbi: the property of appreciating beauty
	le ka fi ce'u melbi: the property of being a beautiful aspect
	le ka fo ce'u melbi: the property of being an aesthetic standard

> The statement is appreciation of Beauty, in all of its
> ramifications - the relationship between people and beautiful things and
> apsects and aesthetic standards.

Yes, then your "le ka melbi" does mean "le ka ce'u melbi ce'u ce'u ce'u".

> >> mi zanru le du'u melbi
> >>
> >> I approve of the fact that (something is) beautiful.
> >
> >No. "I approve of the proposition that something is beautiful".
> >
> >"the fact that" is better rendered by "le nu".
> 
> I disagree, partly because I do not see any difference between the former
> and the latter.

Nor I.

> But since ledu'u got its definition in part from djuno,

How's that?

> then le du'u which is something that can be known, must therefore be a
> "fact".

We only get factivity if the selbri is factive, as "djuno" is.  You
can "jinvi le du'u le mlatu cu crino cirla" without making the
moon's green-cheese-itude a fact.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban