[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:55:29PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > If there are no emergent properties, then there is no difference between
> > le and lei. This is the case with substances. But to use lei would imply
> > that emergent properties exist and you are referring to them (as per my
> > above decree), so le is preferred and lei is meaningless for water.
>
> Why water? Water has gobs of emergent properties, like wetness, ripples,
> and surf.
"le djacu" already has those properties. As you admitted in another message
it can refer to an ocean.
In the interest of keeping volume somewhat in check i'll state my
reply to the other message here: By virtue of the fact that an
individual "djacu" can be any quantity of water, it is essentially
a mass-only brivla. I don't think this is bad, because a "true"
individual "djacu" makes little or no sense (however a true individual
rice makes perfect sense, so rismi should really have been done as
a normal count noun, but oh well, no big deal).
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
bintlqmFU2Dou.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped