[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lionel Vidal scripsit:
> But in that case, isn't {le'e} only {lo'e} with a specific restrictive
> phrase? It would be a pity that both semantics have such overlap.
By no means. The effect is quite different. Dropping back from lo'e/le'e
to lo/le, if I say "le prenu cu zirpu selskapi", you accept that I am using a
strange referent for "le prenu"; if I say "lo prenu cu zirpu selskapi"
you tell me I am in error. (There are various dodges involving vague tense
and tanru ambiguity that I can use, but in substance that is correct.)
Similarly, if I tell you that "le'e xespre cu lojbo", you shrug
this off as a product of my limited acquaintance with Greeks;
if I tell you that "lo'e xespre cu lojbo", you again tell me I am in error.
--
"May the hair on your toes never fall out!" John Cowan
--Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) jcowan@hidden.email