[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > At 08:34 PM 12/21/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >As things stand, > >I find the inclusion of la'e and lu'e in LAhE to be rather unfortunate, > >except for la'e+zo/dei/etc > > LAHE as a selma'o is purely a grammatical maneuver. LAhE + sumti + > terminator transforms into (points to) a different sumti The meaning appropriate to a grammatical category that converts a sumti into a sumti is that of a *function*. The other members of LAhE can straightfowardly be understood as functions, but lu'e and (except in the cases noted above) la'e can't. Hence my original remarks. In other words, the fact that a given sumti may have many symbols for it, or many 'referents' is what makes the inclusion of lu'e and la'e in LAhE unfortunate. --And.