[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > If x2 is nu, then what you need is for x2 to be actual. If > > x2 is du'u, then what you need is for x2 to be true > > Quite so > > > The x2 can't > > be defined as "nu or du'u", but it could be defined as "nu" or > > defined as "du'u" > > Why not "nu or du'u"? If a nu is found (or equivalent such as le fasnu) > then the "actual" interpretation; if a du'u is found (or equivalent such as > le se jufra) then the "true" interpretation Are you suggesting that a single predicate can be defined as "... that x2 be true or actual". I suppose that is possible. I had been thinking that it would lead to polysemy, but with that definition it wouldn't. It's reminiscent of the way apparently-polysemous English _climb_ can be defined nonpolysemously as _clamber or ascend_ (the aeroplane climbed, the snail climbed the lamppost, the monkey climbed down the tree). --And.