(1) loi; (2) le v. la

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

(1) It is fairly clear that I misunderstood loi.
I think it is better if we don't have masses automatically
inheriting all the properties of their constituents. That
way we if my mother weighs 1 bunda, and my father weighs 2, then:
  ci lo bunda loi mi rirni cu junta
But "re lo bunda" would be false.

I wonder if a lohe-like cmavo is warranted for the purpose I
had thought "loi" served: that is the view that every instance
of some category is the same instance. This really would have
every property of every instance of the category. So both
  ci lo bunda *XOI* mi rirni cu junta
and
  re lo bunda *XOI* mi rirni cu junta
  pa lo bunda *XOI* mi rirni cu junta
would be true.
Psychologically, this is like separately encountering twins and
not realizing they're different people, or conceptualizing them
as the same person.

(2) John has pointed out that "la" is +specific. In this case,
"la gerku" means "a certain entity that I'm calling 'gerku'".
This seems exactly like "le gerku", which means "a certain
entity that I'm calling 'gerku'".
Does "la" allow for more than one non-cmevla following it? That
is, does it behave like a normal gadri, terminable in "ku", etc.?
If so, "LA" seems to subsume "LE".
I think it is good that "la" is +specific, so if LA does indeed
subsume LE, I suggest changing this, by making LE +veridical
(LA is of course -veridical - "la gerku" needn't refer to a dog).
"Le gerku" would therefore refer to a certain thing that really
is a dog. At present it could refer to a banana.
The resulting paradigm would be:
   lo +veridical -specific
   le +veridical +specific
   la -veridical +specific

---
And