[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/4/2002 8:40:53 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes: << 8. {lo'e} also serves the purposes that tu'o serves, if -- >> I take the previous seven comments as essentially agreeing with my summary and adding justification for the uses spelled out there, so they seem perfectly fine as practical devices without any implications about either meaning or metaphysics. 8 and 9, however, go far beyond that and without any visible justification. I don't see anything to suggest that we even have occasion to view lo'i broda as a singleton or (what it seems is really meant) as a myopiced individual and certainly not that {lo'e} is the way to do this. And similarly for {le'e}. That {lo'e} and {le'e} need some work is obvious from the variety of weird ideas floating around about them; that this is the right way to go is about as far from obvious as can be. And that it has anything to do with {tu'o} -- even by the rather spurious connection suggested here is more remote still. |