[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > I think there must have been confusion about this at some time, though,
> > because we have all that "is an amount of" in the gismu definitions,
> > which is unnecessary but seems to imply that at some time the idea
> > was that lo *does* force a countable interpretation on the predicate
>
> I think it does force individuality in all but a few cases where another
> ontological type is given. And even there, loi or lo'i just wrap the
> given type
> in a mass or set respectively
So do you accept that {lo blanu} does not mean the same as
{da poi blanu}, then?
--And.