[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 11/3/2002 1:56:08 PM Central Standard Time, xod@hidden.email writes: << >>>plain le = ro da poi cmima le'i
>> Well, I'm glad to hear someone say so. & would probably claim that {ro} does not make an existence claim, though the implicit internal {su'o} does (and the fact that you have picked them out). In any case, if there aren't any, the claim automatically goes to Untrue. << Your definition includes le'i. Is le'i primitive, or does it include le? >> Neither on this view; both derive from {voi} (or any other pattern, thye are interdefinable). Can someone remind what the problem is here? |