WikiDiscuss

1. Oops! Thinking "lujvo" when reading "tanru."
2. Yes, that is what makes it so interesting. Apparently he wants the things which generally do so and so to be the subtaxa — maybe species, maybe genera but certainly not the indivdual plants — that fall under the whatever it is. So there is some need for a marker for these things.
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

pc:
> 1. I suppose {paremei} is strictly a tanru, but it is hard to see how it
> could be more precise, I like {lo pare sovda} better for all that.

1. {paremei} is not the tanru, {sovda paremei} is. An egg type of dozen
is most likely but not necessarily a dozen eggs.

> 2: I gather that {lo'e} is in play as well as {lo}, moving from "the typical"
> to "the taxon" or so (probably not literal Linnean taxa only but that sort of
> thing on any informal level). I think that talk about that sort of thing
> usually is just generic "cucumbers do thus and so", meaning more than some,
> probably not all and certainly the ones that I am fond of, pretty much what
> xorxes has been using {lo} for most of the time. But this case nicely
> mmuddles things, since the critters about which we are talking are exactly
> subtaxa, not their representatives. No problems with that, actually, but some
> with the first part, the taxon itself. We are set up for talking about
> members (etc.) not the abstracts. But I said we needed a device for these
> and here finally is a case — I think.

2>I'm not sure if you're taking into account the "se" here.
The x1 of guzme is for the cucumbers and the x2 for the taxon
or whatever. Pierre is talking about {lo'e se guzme}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/