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

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Carl Burke:
> >> 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".
>
> So 'the fact that' is explicitly transient?

No, but nor is nu.

> From descriptions and
> usage, I would expect an unlabeled bridi to be a 'fact': {mi jmive}
> "I live/lived/will live",

Right. I agree.

> and abstractions to be modifications or
> different aspects of that fact ({le nu mi jmive} "My living/lifetime"
> or {le mu'e mi jmive} "My coming-to-life").

Right. But that's an abstraction within a sumti.

{mi jmive} is equivalent to {nu mi jmive} and is not equivalent
to {du`u mi jmive}. {mi jmive} and {nu mi jmive} both mean that
if you examine the world you will find a bit of it which is
your life, a bit of it that makes {le du`u mi jmive} true.

> Is 'nu' now polysemous
> between 'an actual fact' and 'an event or [transient] state'?
> Has the language mutated that drastically in ten years?

Only if {nu} ever meant "an event or transient state".
Nowadays it means "a situation, a state-of-affairs", and hence
is much the same thing as "an actual fact".

--And